MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162881374 · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001011

Privacy by Design at Population Data BC: a case study describing the technical, administrative, and physical controls for privacy-sensitive secondary use of personal information for research in the public interest

2012· article· en· W2162881374 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyInformation privacyPrivacy policyDue diligencePopulationPrivacy by DesignPrivacy lawComputer securityComputer scienceBusinessPublic relationsEnvironmental healthMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population Data BC (PopData) is an innovative leader in facilitating access to linked data for population health research. Researchers from academic institutions across Canada work with PopData to submit data access requests for projects involving linked administrative data, with or without their own researcher-collected data. PopData and its predecessor-the British Columbia Linked Health Database-have facilitated over 350 research projects analyzing a broad spectrum of population health issues. PopData embeds privacy in every aspect of its operations. This case study focuses on how implementing the Privacy by Design model protects privacy while supporting access to individual-level data for research in the public interest. It explores challenges presented by legislation, stewardship, and public perception and demonstrates how PopData achieves both operational efficiencies and due diligence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.404
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.074 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it