MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605462390 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v1i1.357

Balancing Privacy and Utility in Secondary Data Use to Inform Policy

2017· article· en· W2605462390 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xinjie Cui, Robyn Blackadar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsPolicyWise for Children & Families
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafeguardingData sharingData governanceGeneral partnershipInformation governanceInformation privacyData accessData Protection Act 1998BusinessCorporate governanceRepurposingData collectionPrivacy policyInformation sharingData securityConsistency (knowledge bases)Internet privacyComputer scienceComputer securityInformation systemData qualityPolitical scienceManagement information systemsEngineeringMarketingWorld Wide WebLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT
 ObjectivesUsing existing data for research can generate new knowledge and evidence for policy with relatively little cost. Privacy concerns are paramount in such secondary usage of data collected on human subjects. Information privacy protection and data security are critical considerations in reuse and repurposing of data especially linked data, longitudinal data, and large amounts of data. Data sharing and privacy protection are both in the public interest and we need to assess the risk of “doing” (sharing) as well as the risk of “not doing” (not sharing or not protecting). 
 
 ApproachThe Alberta Centre for Child Family and Community Research (the Centre) establishes the Child Youth Data Lab that links and analyzes administrative data from multiple provincial ministries and the Child Data Centre of Alberta that repurposes research data and manages its access for reuse. The Centre partners with provincial Office of the Information Privacy Commissioner, Research Ethics Boards and leaders in the research communities and technology industry to design and develop measures to enable secondary use while safeguarding the data, and to explore and adopt best practices on data sharing processes, governance, and technologies.
 ResultsIn principle current privacy laws and regulations provide good guidance in collection, use, and disclosure of data, however there is a lack of consistency in the interpretation of these laws at the operational level with regard to secondary data use. The experiences of establishing different data sharing models at the Centre through multiple initiatives are discussed. Cross-sectoral broad partnership brings understanding and builds trusting relationships, which are crucial to establishing data sharing processes. The recognition of the significance of secondary data use to provide direction for policy and program development at the executive level provides commitment for data sharing initiatives. Strong governance structure consists multi-level ministry and multiple stakeholder involvement ensures ongoing support and engagement. The highest data security standards and anonymous solution for data linkage enables the sharing of data with good privacy protection.
 ConclusionSecondary use of data to improve system performance and contributing to scientific discovery has been broadly recognized. A balance between utility and privacy can be realized through broad partnership in building proper governance, technology, processes and policies.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0040.004
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 head0.717
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.045 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207