MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416195477 · doi:10.56975/ijrti.v10i11.207372

Privacy Preserving Machine Learning using Deidentification Techniques for HR and Payroll Data

2025· article· en· W4416195477 on OpenAlexaff
Shanmugaraja Krishnasamy Venugopal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Research Trends and Innovation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAI and HR Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayrollInformation privacyFeature (linguistics)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of machine learning in Human Resources (HR) and payroll systems represents significant capability gains for automation, decision-making, and operational efficiencies.However, this transition process raises significant concerns related to the protection of sensitive employee data.Privacy-preserving computer scientific methods, like deidentification (removing or altering identifiers such that the individual cannot be identified), are becoming an increasingly important way to preserve privacy while maintaining the richness of datasets for use in analytical research.The purpose of this review article is to provide a comprehensive report on various privacy-preserving techniques, especially de-identification techniques common to HR and payroll data.The review will include real-world examples of privacy-preserving methods, including CV de-identification, clustering of quasi-identifiers (QI), narrative-level deidentification, and federated learning (model training without the data leaving the local source, but sharing model updates).The article looks at implications for privacy and utility trade-offs, assesses potential reidentification risks, and summarizes innovations in secured data, such as format-preserving transformations (anonymizing and preserving values such as IDs/dates) and voice anonymization.The review article considers issues identified in the current literature, as well as policy implications and future directions for utilizing secure and compliant machine learning frameworks in human resource settings.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Research Trends and InnovationSame topicAI and HR TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207