Joint controllers in large research consortia: a funnel model to distinguish controllers in the sense of the GDPR from other partners in the consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large European research consortia in the health sciences face challenges regarding the governance of personal data collected, generated and/or shared during their collective research. A controller in the sense of the GDPR is the entity which decides about purposes and means of the data processing. Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and Guidelines of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) indicate that all partners in the consortium would be joint controllers. This paper summarises the case law, the Guidelines and literature on joint controllership, gives a brief account of a webinar organised on the issue by Lygature and the MLC Foundation. Participants at the webinar agreed in large majority that it would be extreme if all partners in the consortium would become joint controllers. There was less agreement how to disentangle partners who are controllers of a study from those who are not. In order to disentangle responsibilities, we propose a funnel model with consecutive steps acting as sieves in the funnel. It differentiates between two types of partners: all partners who are involved in shaping the project as a whole versus those specific partners who are more closely involved in a sub-study following from the DoA or the use of the data Platform. If the role of the partner would be comparable to that of an outside advisor, that partner would not be a data controller even though the partner is part of the consortium. We propose further nuances for the disentanglement which takes place in various steps. Uncertainty about formal controllership under the GDPR can stifle collaboration in consortia due to concerns over (shared) responsibility and liability. Data subjects' ability to exercise their right can also be affected by this. The funnel model proposes a way out of this conundrum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".