MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524113540 · doi:10.5325/jinfopoli.6.2016.0294

Keeping Internet Users in the Know or in the Dark: An Analysis of the Data Privacy Transparency of Canadian Internet Carriers

2016· article· en· W2524113540 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew Clement, Jonathan A. Obar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Internet Registration Authority
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)The InternetInternet privacyUnited States National Security AgencyAgency (philosophy)BusinessInformation privacyVariety (cybernetics)Computer securityPolitical scienceComputer scienceNational securityWorld Wide WebLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the wake of Snowden's revelations about National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, demands that Internet carriers be more forthcoming about their handling of personal information have intensified. Responding to this concern, this report evaluates the data privacy transparency of forty-three Internet carriers serving the Canadian public. Carriers are awarded up to ten stars based on the public availability of information satisfying ten transparency criteria. Carriers earn few stars overall, just 92.5 out of 430, an average of two of ten possible stars. A variety of policy recommendations are provided to encourage and guide further data privacy transparency efforts in Canada as well as around the world.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Information PolicySame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207