MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587019266 · doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.116

Forming a Dimension of Digital Human Rights: Research Agenda for the Right to be Forgotten

2017· article· en· W2587019266 on OpenAlexaff
Chanhee Kwak, Junyeong Lee, Heeseok Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisappropriationRight to be forgottenPerspective (graphical)Dimension (graph theory)Order (exchange)Public relationsThe InternetPoint (geometry)Internet privacyPolitical scienceExclusive rightHuman rightsLaw and economicsSociologyBusinessIntellectual propertyLawData Protection Act 1998Computer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The right to be forgotten has emerged so as to build legal foundations for data subjects to be relieved from misappropriation of personal data on the Internet. However, studies of information systems (IS) on the right to be forgotten and related issues are rare as agreements of the right are diverse according to legal and cultural backgrounds. IS researchers should conduct both explorative and exploitative research in order to build a firm knowledge base for a better understanding of the right to be forgotten from the IS perspective. Doing so would help academia, legislators, and governments, and individuals to understand effects of the right on social, technological and psychological point of view. By suggesting a research agenda to investigate the right to be forgotten, this study sheds light on IS research direction of the right to be forgotten.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0180.003
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207