Bibliographic record
Abstract
This fictional case study examines the question of whether a personal conversational agent/advisor called iSoph, encoding extensive personal information and having a fluent natural language interface, may raise privacy harms that are normally thought to attend to personal relationships, as opposed to harms associated with institutional databases and big data analytics. The case stipulates that (i) iSoph collects extensive personal data about its users from multiple, multimodal sources, (ii) can make inferences from this data in combination with its models, but (ii) cannot share information with its developer or any third party. It is shown that despite condition (iii), iSoph raises privacy risks. These privacy risks are of the type associated with personal relationships and direct observation. iSoph raises these risks because, as an advanced conversational agent, it is able to evoke anthropomorphizing responses from its users in ways that they are not fully conscious of or able to control.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".