Limiting sensitive values in an anonymized table while reducing information loss via <i>p</i>‐proportion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ‐proportion model bounds the proportion of sensitive values of a sensitive attribute in each equivalence class of an anonymized database table in order to limit the ability of a user to link an individual or entity to a sensitive value in that table. Nonsensitive values are not subject to any such constraints, which reduces the amount of anonymization needed to meet the requirements of this model. This leads to less information loss in an anonymized table. Anonymization is performed using an extension of the Mondrian algorithm that incorporates categorical attributes. Known as the adapted Mondrian algorithm, it generalizes a value of a categorical attribute to a set. Existing algorithms, by comparison, replace one value of a predefined hierarchy by another. The ‐proportion model is compared against the ( )‐anonymity model using both the progressive local recoding and (adapted) Mondrian algorithms. Experiments demonstrate the advantage of ‐proportion and Mondrian over ( )‐anonymity and progressive local recoding in terms of reduced information loss, measured using the normalized certainty penalty, discernibility metric, and classification metric.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".