A comparative analysis of data governance: Socio-technical imaginaries of digital personal data in the USA and EU (2008–2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal data are produced through our daily interactions with digital technologies like search engines, social media, and online shopping, and is often referred to as our “digital exhaust.” It has been characterized as the key resource or asset for our economies in the 21st century. This paper focuses on the socio-technical imaginaries of digital personal data as a way to understand how desired forms of data governance are co-produced with collective understandings of personal data as a political-economic asset. We examine the different socio-technical imaginaries that underpinned different developments in data regulations in the United States and EU from 2008 to 2016, focusing specifically on the mutual constitution of law, political economy, and technoscience. We do so in order to understand the “prehistories” of contemporary data governance. We analyze the institutional and legal context around the development of data privacy regulation and data commercialization in these two important jurisdictions and reflect on how this institutional and legal context configured their respective approaches to data governance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".