MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201467966 · doi:10.1080/17579961.2021.1977221

Beyond data protection concerns – the European passenger name record system

2021· article· en· W3201467966 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
FundersDanmarks Frie Forskningsfond
KeywordsDirectiveData Protection Act 1998LegislatureProfiling (computer programming)Political scienceTerrorismGeneral Data Protection RegulationData Protection DirectiveInternet privacyComputer securityBusinessLawEuropean unionEuropean Union lawComputer scienceInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we examine the European framework of collecting and analysing<br/>flight passenger name record (PNR) data for the purpose of combating terrorism and serious crime. The focus is mainly on the EU PNR Directive of 2016, but we also consider the specific legislative framework in Germany and Denmark. In light of the recent review of the Directive, the article aims at exploring the policy-related, legal and technological challenges. In doing so, it goes beyond established data protection concerns. In particular, we debunk the popular claim that PNR analysis in and of itself entails the risk of discrimination of certain groups – a claim commonly levelled against algorithmic analysis. We also provide useful insights into the specific legal safeguards vis-à-vis automated profiling and decision-making through human review.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.038

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.164 · 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