MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105196656 · doi:10.22215/cjcr.v7i1.2796

An Unfair Game of Virtual Hide-and-Go-Seek: The Passive Collection of Children's Information Online

2020· article· en· W3105196656 on OpenAlex
Andrea Korajlija

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueCanadian Journal of Children s Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationInternet privacyData collectionIdentity (music)Face (sociological concept)Identity theftSocial mediaPsychologyComputer securityBusinessPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I examine the regulatory deficiencies surrounding children’s online privacy. Specifically, I assess how the passive collection of children’s information through their parents is permitted under the current legislation. I examine two online activities of parents that jeopardize their children’s privacy: (1) “sharenting” on social media platforms; and (2) the use of pregnancy and parenting mobile applications. I outline the consequences children face because of this unconsented passive collection of their information enabled by their parents’ technology use. Lastly, I call for more stringent regulation. We need legislation that explicitly differentiates children’s privacy interests and offers specific safeguards for them to preserve their digital identity and overall safety.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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