MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206839801 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14654

Facebook and the Cambridge Analytica Scandal: Privacy and Personal Data Protections in Canada

2021· dissertation· en· W4206839801 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Madeleine Le Jeune

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonally identifiable informationInternet privacyInformation privacyContext (archaeology)Data Protection Act 1998Political sciencePrivacy policySocial mediaData breachRight to privacyLawComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2018, the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal made front page news, a data breach that allowed a third-party -Cambridge Analytica -access to the personal data of millions in several countries, including over 600,000 Canadians. The scandal brought to light privacy issues to regulator and in the aftermath, Canada conducted an investigation into this unsanctioned use of data. This thesis explores the details of that scandal and the resulting Canadian investigation by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), as well as drawing on information from the 2009 Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) complaint with the OPC, and the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review (BTLR). These public records are used to provide a lens through which to explore topics of privacy and personal data protection in Canada and what they might mean in a social media platform context. This thesis explores the different regulatory mechanisms and makes some recommendations to improve personal data protection and privacy regulations in Canada, including behavioral and structural regulatory solutions that might mitigate similar such scandals in the future.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207