MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940446202 · doi:10.1177/0163443719843867

How has the fight for anonymity and privacy advanced since Snowden’s whistle-blowing?

2019· article· en· W2940446202 on OpenAlex
Gabriella Coleman

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

VenueMedia Culture & Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnonymityHackerInternet privacyPolitical sciencePoliticsPrivacy laws of the United StatesRight to privacyInformation privacyThe Right to PrivacyLawComputer securityComputer scienceHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the legal, social, and political forces in a post-Snowden era that clarified the stakes around privacy and anonymity all while pulling more people into the orbit of a contemporary privacy and anonymity movement. It compares and contrasts the 100-year period in which US courts fleshed out free speech ideals and recent grass-roots privacy and anonymity initiatives that have come to reach a critical mass, highlighting the importance of civil society, journalists, and especially hackers whose aggressive pursuit of practical solutions have created the conditions for acting anonymously and securing privacy in our current era.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · 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