MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COVID-19 and the Data Governance Gap

2023· article· en· W4379114724 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Law and Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData governanceAccountabilityCorporate governanceLicenseLegitimacyPolitical sciencePublic relationsGeneral Data Protection RegulationData Protection Act 1998BusinessLaw and economicsSociologyData qualityPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted many complexities involved in using data and advanced technologies to help resolve public health emergencies. These complexities highlight the need to embrace a broader framework of data governance with three foundational questions: ( a) who decides about data flows, ( b) on what basis, and ( c) with what accountability and oversight. These questions can accommodate the issues that have arisen in the literature regarding new types of data harms. However, these questions also foreground important issues of power, authority, and legitimacy. Data governance can provide an organizing normative framework to address emerging data themes including access to data, collective decision making, data intermediaries, data sovereignty, design and digital infrastructure, regulatory technologies, the rule of law, and social trust and license. The pandemic experience with contact tracing apps, in particular, showed the many unresolved governance challenges.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.306 · 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