MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955882731 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2019v44n2a3503

Searching for Data Privacy Self-Management: Individual Data Control and Canada’s Digital Strategy

2019· article· en· W2955882731 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan A. Obar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFallacyPresumptionInternet privacyInformation privacyBig dataControl (management)Personally identifiable informationData Protection Act 1998Information privacy lawData managementPrivacy by DesignComputer scienceBusinessComputer securityPolitical scienceLawData miningEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problematic presumption that users can control the vast consent and data-management responsibilities associated with big data is referred to as the fallacy of data privacy self-management. Though untenable, this presumption remains fundamental to Canadian privacy law, exemplified in the individual access principle of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act governing commercial data management. This article describes the fallacy, critiques the individual access principle, and introduces potential solutions relevant to Canada’s digital strategy.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207