MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416377565 · doi:10.1017/9781108641784.005

Privacy’s Useful but Limited Theory

2025· book-chapter· W4416377565 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)SkepticismDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter 2 critically examines privacy-based conventional theories, which approach chilling effects as a result of privacy harms. While privacy-based theories of chilling effects improve on legal accounts, they are also too narrow and cannot explain chilling effects in a variety of contexts, including even forms of privacy-related chilling effects. Moreover, courts and judges have also remained deeply skeptical of privacy-based theories. To address these limitations and fully understand the threat chilling effects pose to freedom, fundamental rights, and democracy we need a new understanding of chilling effects that moves beyond conventional accounts.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.039
Scholarly communication0.0080.020
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207