MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164877085 · doi:10.24908/ss.v1i4.3336

Prepaid Mobile Phone Service and the Anonymous Caller: Considering Wireless E9-1-1 in Canada.

2002· article· en· W2164877085 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gordon A. Gow, Mark Ihnat

Bibliographic record

VenueSurveillance & Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInternet privacyAnonymityService providerMobile phoneContext (archaeology)Computer securityBusinessPhoneService (business)ObligationLocation-based serviceWirelessComputer scienceTelecommunicationsPolitical scienceLawGeographyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on a recently concluded empirical study into the development of Wireless E9-1-1 (emergency service) in Canada that initially focussed on privacy concerns raised in the context of an emerging location based service (LBS) for mobile phone users. In light of existing regulatory arrangements this paper concludes that in Canada the emerging Wireless E9-1-1 system establishes a reasonable level of protection for the privacy rights of mobile phone users who choose to contact emergency services. However, an important and surprising issue was raised in the proceedings regarding the obligation of wireless service providers offering prepaid mobile phone service to obtain verifiable subscriber records from their customers. This paper provides details regarding the issue and contributes a number of points to an emerging debate concerning the right to anonymity for customers who elect to use prepaid or other services provided over commercial networks.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0280.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurveillance & SocietySame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207