MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898733494 · doi:10.1145/3267305.3274149

GLOBAL Privacy Protection

2018· article· en· W2898733494 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionData Protection Act 1998BusinessPersonal jurisdictionInformation privacyGeneral Data Protection RegulationComputer securityComputer scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As transborder data flows of personal data are increasing in volume and frequency, a jurisdiction's capacity to enforce personal data protection laws outside its territory is becoming more necessary and more difficult. As is shown in this paper, there have been three main approaches to dealing with this issue: the jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, organization-to-organization, and the data localization approaches. While the jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction approach makes transborder data flows contingent upon the existence of adequate/equivalent national data protection laws, the organization-to-organization approach makes it the responsibility of individual data controllers to meet basic standards of data protection when those data are processed offshore. The data localization approach on the other hand, obliges third parties to store personal data within the boundaries of the country of operation. The fact that each of these models has its strengths and weaknesses, and that different jurisdictions have adopted different approaches based on different motivations and interests, makes the actual pursuit of international data protection increasingly complex..

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.283 · 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