Super SDKs: Tracking personal data and platform monopolies in the mobile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we address the question ‘what is tracking in the mobile ecosystem’ through a comprehensive overview of the Software Development Kit (SDK). Our research reveals a complex infrastructural role for these technical objects connecting end-user data with app developers, third parties and dominant advertising platforms like Google and Facebook. We present an innovative theoretical framework which we call a data monadology to foreground this interrelationship, predicated on an economic model that exchanges personal data for the infrastructural services used to build applications. Our main contribution is an SDK taxonomy, which renders them more transparent and observable. We categorise SDK services into three main categories: (i) Programmatic AdTech for monetisation; (ii) App Development, for building, maintaining and offering additional artificial intelligence features and (iii) App Extensions which more visibly embed third parties into apps like maps, wallets or other payment services. A major finding of our analysis is the special category of the Super SDK, reserved for platforms like Google and Facebook. Not only do they offer a vast array of services across all three categories, making them indispensable to developers, they are super conduits for personal data and the primary technical means for the expansion of platform monopolisation across the mobile ecosystem.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".