Private commercial companies sharing health-relevant consumer data with health researchers in sub-Saharan Africa: an ethical exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharing large digital-first datasets, including for purposes for which they were not originally intended, is a hallmark of the 'big data revolution'. Through their routine operations, private commercial companies collect massive amounts of diverse data from their customers, some of which may interest those working in the public sector, such as health researchers. Researchers and government agencies worldwide have been increasingly using data from commercial entities (such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook/Meta, Twitter/X and Amazon, among others) to generate health-related insights. This article explores ethical issues raised by the practice of commercial companies sharing consumer data with third-parties for the purposes of promoting health in the sub-Saharan African (SSA) context. First, as an illustrative example, it examines some of the ways telecommunication (telecom) companies in SSA shared mobility data from cellphone users with public health researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, it examines a recent debate about the ethical responsibilities of companies that collect, process and share user-generated data, drawing implications for the SSA context. Finally, since this is a relatively understudied subject, we point out some areas where future conceptual and empirical work could contribute to the development of relevant ethics guidance and regulatory governance in SSA.
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 | 0.056 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".