A Semantic-based Approach to Reduce the Reading Time of Privacy Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy policy is a legal document in which the users are informed about the data practices used by the organizations. Past research indicates that the privacy policies are long, include incomplete information, and are hard to read. Research also shows that users are not inclined to read these long and verbose policies. The solution that we are proposing in this paper is to build tools that can assist users with finding relevant content in the privacy policies for their queries using semantic approach. This paper presents the development of domain ontology for privacy policies so that the relevant sentences related to privacy question can be automatically identified. For this study, we built an ontology and also validated and evaluated the ontology using qualitative and quantitative methods including competency questions, data driven, and user evaluation. Results from the evaluation of ontology depicted that the amount of text to read was significantly reduced as the users had to only read selected text that ranged from 1% to 30% of a privacy policy. The amount of content selected for reading depended on the query and its associated keywords. This finding shows that the time required to read a policy was significantly reduced as the ontology directed the user to the content related to a given user query. This finding was also confirmed by the results of the user study session. The results from the user study session indicated that the users found ontology helpful in finding relevant sentences as compared to reading the entire policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".