MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955709897

An assessment of the impact of the Schrems judgement on the data transfer grounds available under EU data protection law for data transfers to the U.S.

2016· article· en· W2955709897 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch portal (Tilburg University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigitalization, Law, and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementData Protection Act 1998LawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An assessment of the impact of the Schrems judgement on the data transfer grounds available under EU data protection law for data transfers to the U.S.The purpose of this memorandum is to examine the export of personal data by data controllers established in the EU to countries outside of the EU, 1 in particular to the United States, in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner 2 (Schrems judgment). I.The EU data transfer regime 1.The general rule under EU Privacy Directive 95/46 (Directive) is that personal data can only be exported by a company established in the EU to third countries that provide an "adequate level of protection" for such data, unless certain conditions have been met (Article 25(1) of the Directive).Those conditions are split into two categories.(a) Transfers based on an "adequacy decision" (issued under Article 25(6) of the Directive): Article 25(6) of the Directive allows the Commission to find -via an "adequacy decision" -that certain legal regimes are 'adequate' when assessed against the standard set by EU data protection law.Specific jurisdictional adequacy decisions include those permitting data export to Canada, New Zealand and Israel. 3 Only a very limited number of countries have obtained an adequacy decision, and these do not include main trading partners of the EU, such as China, Japan, Russia, India, and Brazil.The procedure for countries to obtain an adequacy finding can take years and requires a full assessment by the Commission of the rule of law, access to justice as well as international human rights norms and standards in such country, which assessment further has to be revised on a regular basis. 4 (b) Specific data transfers grounds (regulated under Article 26 of the Directive): the general rule that personal data may only be exported from the EU to third countries that provide an "adequate level of protection" for such personal data is subject to a number of explicit "derogations".These derogations are set forth in Article 26 of the Directive, listing the circumstances in which a data exporter is permitted to transfer personal data from the 1The countries of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have ratified the Directive.References to the EU should be understood to include the EFTA countries, i.e., they also concern the European Economic Area (EEA).

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.001
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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.136 · 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