MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775715748 · doi:10.1145/3134652

Digital Privacy Challenges with Shared Mobile Phone Use in Bangladesh

2017· article· en· W2775715748 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyMobile phonePhoneData sharingAffect (linguistics)Information privacyQualitative propertyMobile deviceBusinessPsychologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceTelecommunicationsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior research on technology use in the Global South suggests that people in marginalized communities frequently share a single device among multiple individuals. However, the data privacy challenges and tensions that arise when people share devices have not been studied in depth. This paper presents a qualitative study with 72 participants that analyzes how families in Bangladesh currently share mobile phones, their usage patterns, and the tensions and challenges that arise as individuals seek to protect the privacy of their personal data. We show how people share devices out of economic need, but also because sharing is a social and cultural practice that is deeply embedded in Bangladeshi society. We also discuss how prevalent power relationships affect sharing practices and reveal gender dynamics that impact the privacy of women's data. Finally, we highlight strategies that participants adopted to protect their private data from the people with whom they share devices. Taken together, our findings have broad implications that advance the CSCW community's understanding of digital privacy outside the Western 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0070.004
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.214 · 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