Decentralized geoprivacy: leveraging social trust on the distributed web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite several high-profile data breaches and business models that commercialize user data, participation in social media networks continues to require users to trust corporations to safeguard their personal data. Since these data increasingly contain geographic references that allude to individuals’ locations and movements, the need for new approaches to geoprivacy and data sovereignty has grown. We develop a geoprivacy framework that couples two emerging technologies – decentralized data storage and discrete global grid systems – to facilitate fine-grained user control over the ownership of, access to and map-based representation of their data. The framework is illustrated with a dynamic k-anonymity model that links the geographic precision of shared data to social trust within in a social network. In this framework, users’ spatio-temporal data are shared through a decentralized system and are represented on a discrete global grid data model at spatial resolutions that correspond to varying degrees of trust between individuals who are exchanging information. Our framework has several advantages over centralized geoprivacy approaches, namely trust in a third-party entity is not required and geoprivacy is dynamic and context-dependent with users maintaining autonomy. As the distributed web begins to emerge, so too can the next generation of geographic information sharing tools.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".