MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238531408 · doi:10.4018/9781599049472.ch105

Privacy Rights Management

2011· book-chapter· en· W4238531408 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Government · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Rights Management and Security
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyBusinessComputer securityComputer scienceLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managing privacy is important because organizations must meet legislative and organizational requirements. Some countries, such as the United States of America, have a patchwork of legislation, making it difficult to understand technical requirements. Other countries, such as Canada and the European Union, have well-established and understood privacy laws. As well, many different technologies that may be applied to provide compliance with those laws exist, but there are no established technological solutions suited for handling all of the challenging requirements expressed by privacy regulations. The question remains: how can a citizen’s privacy rights be managed or enforced? This article describes extensions to a privacy architecture that employs digital rights management technologies to manage individual data privacy. Several scenarios related to the management of personally identifiable information are described, illustrating how the system operates in support of the requirements expressed in the European Union privacy principles. Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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