MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244757492 · doi:10.4018/9781605662046.ch006

How Much is Too Much? How Marketing Professionals can Avoid Violating Privacy Laws by Understanding the Privacy Principles

2011· book-chapter· en· W4244757492 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas P. Robinson, Prescott C. Ensign

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyPrivacy by DesignInformation privacyPrivacy laws of the United StatesPrivacy policyBusinessComputer securityLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A marketeer’s point of view is presented in this chapter. Although legal restrictions safeguard processes and restrict annoying intrusive techniques, protecting customers, it can be argued that responsible privacy practices in the marketing profession will add value for consumers. As businesses compete with greater intensity to provide the customer with control over areas such as product offerings, services provided, and account management, privacy standards, being an important part of the customer-company relationship, formulate the grounds upon which businesses compete to provide greater customer control.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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.254
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

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

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicBusiness Law and EthicsFrench-language works237,207