Deep Active Learning with Crowdsourcing Data for Privacy Policy Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy policies are statements that notify users of the services' data practices. However, few users are willing to read through policy texts due to the length and complexity. While automated tools based on machine learning exist for privacy policy analysis, to achieve high classification accuracy, classifiers need to be trained on a large labeled dataset. Most existing policy corpora are labeled by skilled human annotators, requiring significant amount of labor hours and effort. In this paper, we leverage active learning and crowdsourcing techniques to develop an automated classification tool named Calpric (Crowdsourcing Active Learning PRIvacy Policy Classifier), which is able to perform annotation equivalent to those done by skilled human annotators with high accuracy while minimizing the labeling cost. Specifically, active learning allows classifiers to proactively select the most informative segments to be labeled. On average, our model is able to achieve the same F1 score using only 62% of the original labeling effort. Calpric's use of active learning also addresses naturally occurring class imbalance in unlabeled privacy policy datasets as there are many more statements stating the collection of private information than stating the absence of collection. By selecting samples from the minority class for labeling, Calpric automatically creates a more balanced training set.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".