Investigation of the Privacy Concerns in AI Systems for Young Digital Citizens: A Comparative Stakeholder Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems into technologies used by young digital citizens raises significant privacy concerns. This study investigates these concerns through a comparative analysis of stakeholder perspectives. A total of 252 participants were surveyed, with the analysis focusing on 110 valid responses from parents/educators and 100 from AI professionals after data cleaning. Quantitative methods, including descriptive statistics and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, examined five validated constructs: Data Ownership and Control, Parental Data Sharing, Perceived Risks and Benefits, Transparency and Trust, and Education and Awareness. Results showed Education and Awareness significantly influenced data ownership and risk assessment, while Data Ownership and Control strongly impacted Transparency and Trust. Transparency and Trust, along with Perceived Risks and Benefits, showed minimal influence on Parental Data Sharing, suggesting other factors may play a larger role. The study underscores the need for user-centric privacy controls, tailored transparency strategies, and targeted educational initiatives. Incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives offers actionable insights into ethical AI design and governance, balancing innovation with robust privacy protections to foster trust in a digital age.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it