MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238740452 · doi:10.1109/msec.2019.2936696

Table of contents

2019· article· en· W4238740452 on OpenAlexaff
Omer Tene, Katrine Evans, Bruno Gencarelli, Gabe Maldoff, Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna, Nurul Momen, Majid Hatamian, Lothar Fritsch, Jatinder Singh, Jennifer Cobbe, Cesare Bartolini, Gabriele Lenzini, Livio Robaldo, Bülent Yener, Tsvi Gal, M. Sadegh Riazi, Darvish Bita, Farinaz Rouhani, Dan Boneh, Andrew Grotto, Patrick McDaniel, Nicolas Papernot, Scott Ruoti, Kent Seamons, Alan T. Sherman, Linda Oliva, Enis Golaszewski, Dhananjay S. Phatak, Travis Scheponik, Geoffrey Herman, Dong Wik Choi, Spencer Offenberger, Peter A. Petérson, Josiah Dykstra, Gregory V. Bard, Ankur Chattopadhyay, Filipo Sharevski, R. C. Verma, Ryan Vrecenar, Andrew Fasano, Tim Leek, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt, Joshua Bundt, James Michael, Daniel E. Geer, Dale Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Security & Privacy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of Niagara
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly a decade in the making, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Europe's massive overhaul of its privacy and data protection laws, came into effect to great fanfare in May 2018. Impacting every area of an economy marked by technological and data innovation, including the public and private sectors, finance and health care, retail and education, transportation, pharmaceuticals, utilities, and scientific research, the GDPR carried immense promise but also many implementation challenges and interpretation complexities. A year in, it is not too soon to pause for reflection and to explore the reform's effect on corporate and organizational data practices, particularly at the intersection of policy, law, and engineering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8260.759

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Security & PrivacySame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207