MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Legislative Based for Personal Privacy Policy Specification

2008· book-chapter· en· W4241527182 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 · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivacy policyPrivacy by DesignInformation privacyInternet privacyPersonally identifiable informationLegislationBusinessLegislatureInformation privacy lawPrivacy softwarePrivacy lawEuropean unionService (business)Computer securityPolitical scienceComputer scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of the Internet has been accompanied by a proliferation of e-services, especially in the area of e-commerce (e.g., Amazon.com, eBay.com). However, consumers of these e-services are becoming more and more sensitive to the fact that they are giving up private information every time they use them. At the same time, legislative bodies in many jurisdictions have enacted legislation to protect the privacy of individuals when they need to interact with organizations. As a result, e-services can only be successful if there is adequate protection for user privacy. The use of personal privacy policies to express an individual’s privacy preferences appears best-suited to manage privacy for e-commerce. We first motivate the reader with our e-service privacy policy model that explains how personal privacy policies can be used for e-services. We then derive the minimum content of a personal privacy policy by examining some key privacy legislation selected from Canada, the European Union, and the United States.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.253 · 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