MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FEATURES OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO DESTROY INFORMATION REGARDING HIMSELF (RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN)

2023· article· en· W4387808742 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional State · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUkrainian Legal and Forensic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight to knowRight to be forgottenReflexive pronounLegislationInternet privacyPersonally identifiable informationLegislatureLawConfidentialityLaw and economicsPolitical scienceConstitutionControl (management)BusinessSociologyComputer scienceData Protection Act 1998Epistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article defines the content of the concept of an individual’s right to destroy information regarding himself (the right to be forgotten) as one of the most important elements of the right of an individual to information regarding himself, which consists in the ability of an individual to demand deletion or erasure of personal information. The author determines that an individual’s right to destroy of information regarding himself enables an individual to control the availability and dissemination of information regarding himself, which may prevent the endless dissemination of personal information about an individual and potential damage to him or his confidentiality in the future. The author determines that the EU has made a significant contribution to the regulation of the right to be forgotten in the complex of personal data protection legislation, since EU Regulation 2016/679 sets out the conditions for acquiring such a right, the grounds for unconditional fulfillment of a request for deletion of information regarding oneself and the cases in which this right may be limited. However, the latter does not consider the entire scope of personal information, which complicates the mechanism for exercising this right. The analysis also revealed that the United States does not have a unified federal legislative regulation of the right to erase or destroy, and that court practice generally does not satisfy claims for the erasure of information regarding oneself, referring to the provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution. In Canada, civil law is focused on certain cases of exercising the right to demand the removal or correction of certain information by the original source, but the Canadian legal framework does not define the right to be forgotten. The concept of the civil right to be forgotten in the understanding of the legal system in Ukraine is also not defined. Summing up, the author notes that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is currently focused on establishing the criteria and limits of balancing between Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the data controller’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR in terms of ensuring the right of an individual to be forgotten. In Ukraine also there is an urgent need to regulate the right of an individual to information regarding himself, especially in terms of his right to erase such information and to regulate the mechanism for exercising the right of an individual to destroy information regarding himself.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.296 · 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