Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of smartphone cameras and social media has increased the reach of the average person and the information they share online. While considerable attention has been paid to people who share their own information, less has been said about what it means from an ethical perspective to share information about others. Drawing connections back to the longstanding tradition of street photography and attendant ethical concerns, this paper considers the ethics of sharing visual representations of strangers online. This phenomenon is examined through three case studies featuring individuals who went viral online without their knowledge or consent. It ultimately concludes that the decision to share personal information related to other people and thereby risk exposing the subject of the photo or video to unwilling virality is, at best, ethically fraught. Street photographers, including amateur ones, are encouraged to reflect on the possibility that their decision to capture and share moments in others’ lives could have a far-reaching negative impact which they can neither anticipate nor 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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".