MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Privacy, Data Protection and Security in the Context of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services

2019· book-chapter· en· W3026400457 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

VenueEdinburgh University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData Protection Act 1998Information privacyContext (archaeology)Internet privacyLegislationGeneral Data Protection RegulationConsumer protectionPrivacy protectionBusinessConsumer privacyComputer securitySovereigntyPrivacy by DesignData Protection DirectiveInformation privacy lawPrivacy lawPrivacy policyPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceEuropean unionEuropean Union lawInternational tradeGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter provides a broad overview of privacy, data protection and security issues raised by DTC services. This includes discussion of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the UK’s Data Protection Legislation, and a brief discussion of US and Canadian Privacy Law. It also covers secondary use of genetic databases, the Future of Privacy Forum’s Privacy Best Practices for Consumer Genetic Testing Services, and Indigenous Peoples and Data Sovereignty.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

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 science0.0030.002
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.156 · 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