MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547879800 · doi:10.1177/1461444816675184

Display and control in online social spaces: Towards a typology of users

2016· article· en· W2547879800 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcGill University
FundersOffice of the Privacy Commissioner of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsTypologyControl (management)Internet privacySocial mediaSocial controlUser-generated contentSociologyComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebSocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earlier research using qualitative techniques suggests that the default conception of online social networks is as public spaces with little or no expectation of control over content or distribution of profile information. Some research, however, suggests that users within these spaces have different perspectives on information control and distribution. This study uses Q methodology to investigate subjective perspectives with respect to privacy of, and control over, Facebook profiles. The results suggests three different types of social media users: those who view profiles as spaces for controlled social display, exerting control over content or audience; those who treat their profiles as spaces for open social display, exercising little control over either content or audience; and those who view profiles as places to post personal information to a controlled audience. We argue that these different perspectives lead to different privacy needs and expectations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.282 · 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