Narratives: the Unforeseen Influencer of Privacy Concerns
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy requirements are increasingly growing in importance as new privacy regulations are enacted. To adequately manage privacy requirements, organizations not only need to comply with privacy regulations, but also consider user privacy concerns. In this exploratory study, we used Reddit as a source to understand users’ privacy concerns regarding software applications. We collected 4.5 million posts from Reddit and classified 129075 privacy related posts, which is a non-negligible number of privacy discussions. Next, we clustered these posts and identified 9 main areas of privacy concerns. We use the concept of narratives from economics (i.e., posts that can go viral) to explain the phenomenon of what and when users change in their discussion of privacy. We further found that privacy discussions change over time and privacy regulatory events have a short term impact on such discussions. However, narratives have a notable impact on what and when users discussed about privacy. Considering narratives could guide software organizations in eliciting the relevant privacy concerns before developing them as privacy requirements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it