MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907115233 · doi:10.2196/11969

Toward an Ethically Founded Framework for the Use of Mobile Phone Call Detail Records in Health Research

2018· article· en· W2907115233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kerina Jones, Helen Daniels, Sharon Heys, David Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)CLARITYAccountabilityMobile phonePhoneInternet privacyData governanceConsistency (knowledge bases)Public healthCorporate governanceComputer scienceAnonymityData sciencePublic relationsBusinessComputer securityMedicinePolitical scienceMarketingService (business)Data quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data derived from the plethora of networked digital devices hold great potential for public benefit. Among these, mobile phone call detail records (CDRs) present novel opportunities for research and are being used in a variety of health geography studies. Research suggests that the public is amenable to the use of anonymized CDRs for research; however, further work is needed to show that such data can be used appropriately. This study works toward an ethically founded data governance framework with social acceptability. Using a multifaceted approach, this study draws upon data governance arrangements in published health research using CDRs, with a consideration of public views and the public's information expectations from mobile network operators, and data use scenarios of CDRs in health research. The findings were considered against a backdrop of legislative and regulatory requirements. CDRs can be used at various levels of data and geographic granularity and may be integrated with additional, publicly available or restricted datasets. As such, there may be a significant risk of identity disclosure, which must be mitigated with proportionate control measures. An indicative relative risk of the disclosure model is proposed to aid this process. Subsequently, a set of recommendations is presented, including the need for greater transparency, accountability, and incorporation of public views for social acceptability. This study addresses the need for greater clarity and consistency in data governance for CDRs in health research. While recognizing the need to protect commercial interests, we propose that these recommendations be used to contribute toward an ethically founded practical framework to promote the safe, socially acceptable use of CDR data for public benefit. This pattern needs to be repeated for the appropriate use of new and emerging data types from other networking devices and the wider internet of things.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.574
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.412
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5740.412
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0190.139
Scholarly communication0.0460.034
Open science0.0090.025
Research integrity0.0260.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.426
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.107 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207