Prediction, Preemption, Presumption: How Big Data Threatens Big Picture Privacy
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
Big Data has become a familiar concept in legal and social scientific literature and debate. This paper explores the nature of Big Data by examining its intersection with consequential, preferential, and preemptive predictions. The authors address how fundamental jurisprudential principles, including the presumption of innocence and the associated privacy and due process values are threatened by an overreliance on Big Data and the way it is put to use in making preemptive predictions. While the authors acknowledge the benefits of big data, they question whether the trade-off is worth it in light of the resultant undesirable social consequences. Ultimately, the employment of Big Data by corporations, governmental entities, and individuals can replace proof with mere prediction. In order to mitigate potential negative outcomes, the authors maintain that subjects of preemptive predictions must be able to scrutinize and contest projections and assumptions about themselves.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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