MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413408754 · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11333-4

Privacy and security in recommenders: an analytical review

2025· article· en· W4413408754 on OpenAlexaff
Bolanle Adefowoke Ojokoh, Folasade Olubusola Isinkaye, Ming Zhang, Joshua J. Tom, Arome Junior Gabriel, Olaitan Afolabi, Bamidele Afolabi

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsAssiniboine Community College
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommender systems (RSs) effectively curb information overload by providing personalized suggestions of items to users across different online domains. Their widespread use in e-commerce enhances user engagement, personalizes shopping experiences, and drives sales growth. However, despite the effectiveness of these systems at generating recommendations for users, they still raise major privacy and security concerns as their data could be exploited for malicious purposes, which can lead to data breaches and misuse. Therefore, this paper presents a comprehensive and systematic review of the underlying causes of privacy and security challenges in RS. It also provides a detailed taxonomy categorizing these concerns based on their targets and the risks they create. It further presents potential solutions that have been used in the literature while identifying challenges and possible research directions to pursue in a bid to address privacy and security concerns in RSs. This paper will be a useful resource for current and upcoming researchers in the domain of RSs. It will support knowledge advancement and steer appropriate research directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ReviewSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207