MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392898221 · doi:10.61838/kman.aitech.1.1.4

Navigating Privacy Concerns: Social Media Users' Perspectives on Data Sharing

2023· article· en· W4392898221 on OpenAlexaff
MohammadBagher Jafari, Zahra Shaghaghi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyInformation privacyThematic analysisSocial mediaPrivacy by DesignPersonally identifiable informationPrivacy policyEmpowermentInformation sharingPrivacy softwareQualitative researchComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyPolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to explore social media users' perspectives on privacy concerns and data sharing, identifying the major themes that encapsulate their experiences and attitudes towards online privacy and the strategies they employ to protect their personal information. A qualitative research design was employed, involving semi-structured interviews with 23 social media users from diverse demographic backgrounds. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts, focusing on identifying and interpreting patterns related to privacy concerns and protective behaviors. The analysis revealed five major themes: Understanding of Privacy, Attitudes Towards Data Sharing, Privacy Management Strategies, Impact of Social Media on Privacy, and Future Perspectives on Privacy. Each theme comprised several categories and concepts, including Definitions of Privacy, Privacy Awareness, Willingness to Share, Risks and Benefits, Use of Privacy Settings, Information Disclosure, Avoidance Behaviors, Perceived Threats, Changes in Behavior, Desired Changes, Predictions about Privacy, and User Empowerment. The study highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of social media users' privacy concerns and the strategies they adopt to navigate these challenges. It underscores the importance of developing more intuitive privacy controls and the need for ongoing education on privacy management. The findings also suggest a call for social media platforms and policymakers to consider users' diverse needs and concerns in the development of privacy protection measures.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207