MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929496807

Data Minefield: How AI is Prodding Governments to Rethink Trade in Data

2018· preprint· en· W2929496807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Ariel Aaronson

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataData Protection Act 1998Data scienceComputer scienceBusinessComputer securityWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No nation alone can regulate artificial intelligence (AI) because it is built on cross- border data flows. • Countries are just beginning to figure out how best to use and to protect various types of data that are used in AI, whether proprietary, personal, public or metadata. • Countries could alter comparative advantage in data through various approaches to regulating data — for example, requiring companies to pay for personal data. • Canada should carefully monitor and integrate its domestic regulatory and trade strategies related to data utilized in AI.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0100.028
Scholarly communication0.0420.069
Open science0.0050.015
Research integrity0.0220.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.012

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207