Data-Driven Learning for Data Rights, Data Pricing, and Privacy Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, data has become one of the most important resources in the digital economy. Unlike traditional resources, the digital nature of data makes it difficult to value and contract. Therefore, establishing an efficient and standard data-transaction market system would be beneficial for lowering cost and improving productivity among the parties in this industry. Although numerous studies have been dedicated to the issue of complying with data regulations and other data-transaction issues such as privacy and pricing, little work has been done to provide a comprehensive review of these studies in the fields of machine learning and data science. To provide a complete and up-to-date understanding of this topic, this review covers the three key issues of data transaction: data rights, data pricing, and privacy computing. By connecting these topics, this paper provides a big picture of a data ecosystem in which data is generated by data subjects such as individuals, research agencies, and governments, while data processors acquire data for innovational or operational purposes, and benefits are allocated according to the data’s respective ownership via an appropriate price. With the long-term goal of making artificial intelligence (AI) beneficial to human society, AI algorithms will then be assessed by data protection regulations (i.e., privacy protection regulations) to help build trustworthy AI systems for daily life.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".