The effect of privacy concerns, risk, control, and trust on individuals’ decisions to share personal information: A game theory-based approach
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
Abstract The rapid developments and innovations in technology have created unlimited opportunities for private and public organizations to collect, store and analyze the large and complex information about users and their online activities. Data mining, data publishing, and sharing sensitive data with third parties help organizations improve the quality of their products and services and raise significant individuals’ privacy concerns. Privacy of personal information remains subject to considerable controversy. The problem is that big data analytics methods allow user’s data to be unlawfully generated, stored, and processed by leaving users with little to no control over their personal information. This quantitative correlational study measures the effect of privacy concerns, risk, control, and trust on individuals’ decisions to share personal information in the context of big data analysis. The key research question aimed to examine the relationship among the variables of perceived privacy concerns, perceived privacy risk, perceived privacy control, and trust. Drawing on Game Theory, the study explores all the game players’ actions, strategies, and payoffs. Correlation analysis was used to test these variables based on the research model with 418 internet users of e-services in the United States. The overall correlation analysis showed that the variables were significantly related. Recommendations for future studies are to explore e-commerce, e-government, and social networking separately, and data should be collected in different regions where many factors can affect the privacy concerns of the individuals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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