MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512584961 · doi:10.29173/alr46

Privacy Protection and Genetic Research: Where Does the Public Interest Lie?

2014· article· en· W2512584961 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Ubaka Ogbogu, Sarah Burningham

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaWellcomeStem Cell NetworkWellcome TrustWorld Health Organization
KeywordsStatutory lawPublic interestBalance (ability)Internet privacyRelation (database)Information privacyBusinessPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsSociologyPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is significant public interest in the outcomes of genetic research. However, there is also a great deal of concern that genetic research and associated realms will foster the use and disclosure of personal health and genetic information in ways that undermine protected privacy interests. This article proposes that a balance must be struck between legitimate public interests implicated in the collection, use, and disclosure of genetic information for research purposes. The article also explores the tension between the public interest in genetic research and the protection of individual privacy in relation to different policy regimes and reviews existing statutory rules, case law, and administrative decisions on the public interest exception in Canadian privacy law.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.090
Scholarly communication0.0180.013
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0320.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207