A Systematic Review of Blockchain for Consent Management
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology was introduced through Bitcoin in a 2008 whitepaper by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto. Since its inception, it has gathered great attention because of its unique properties-immutability and decentralized authority. This technology is now being implemented in various fields such as healthcare, IoT, data management, etc., apart from cryptocurrencies. As it is a newly emerging technology, researchers and organizations face many challenges in integrating this technology into other fields. Consent management is one of the essential processes in an organization because of the ever-evolving privacy laws, which are introduced to provide more control to users over their data. This paper is a systematic review of Blockchain's application in the field of consent and privacy data management. The review discusses the adaptation of Blockchain in healthcare, IoT, identity management, and data storage. This analysis is formed on the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and a process of systematic mapping review. We provide analysis of the development, challenges, and limitations of blockchain technology for consent management.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it