PHR User Privacy Concerns and Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Results of an empirical study on the privacy concerns, attitudes, and behaviour of personal health record (PHR) users are presented. The study addressed the following questions: (1) What are the factors influencing privacy concerns of PHR users? (2) To what extent do PHR users read privacy agreements and which factors are in play when they fail to read them. (3) Are the behaviour and attitudes of PHR users consistent with respect to reading privacy agreements and using privacy settings? We infer from the study results that the factors influencing privacy concerns of general online users (as reported in literature) also apply to PHR users. In spite of privacy concerns, 60% of the respondents in our study reported not reading privacy agreements. PHR users who were highly concerned about privacy did not report changing their default privacy settings (as offered in a typical social networking website) in a manner consistent with their stated attitudes towards privacy. Based on the issues identified in the study we conclude with a number of design recommendations for privacy-friendly PHR systems.</p> <p> </p>
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".