MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161771770 · doi:10.36315/2021inpact096

WILLINGNESS TO SHARE PERSONAL INFORMATION

2021· article· en· W3161771770 on OpenAlexaff
Lilly Elisabeth Both

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological applications and trends · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientiousnessAgreeablenessExtraversion and introversionPersonally identifiable informationPsychologyBig Five personality traitsPersonalitySocial mediaSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that influence an individual’s choice to share personal information online. Specifically, the role of age, gender, personality, overall media exposure, and perceived risks and benefits were examined in relation to a willingness to share personal information that differed in sensitivity (high school grades, medical records, income) and differed in target audience (social media, online store, general public). A total of 202 individuals participated in this survey study. The majority were young (M age = 22.46 years, SD = 5.77), single (83.7%), women (80.7 %), with at least some post-secondary education (90.1%). A series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. The results indicated that willingness to share personal information on social media was predicted by having higher scores on the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and negative emotionality. Higher scores on perceived purchase benefits and total media exposure also predicted willingness to share personal information on social media. In terms of willingness to share personal information with an online store, total media exposure was a significant predictor along with higher extraversion and lower conscientiousness scores. Finally, willingness to share personal information with the general public was predicted by overall media exposure. Participants generally believed that there were risks involved in sharing personal information, but these risks were considered to be slight. As well, they only slightly disagreed when asked if the internet could be trusted, and were neutral on whether there were purchase benefits to providing personal information."

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological applications and trendsSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207