MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of User-Generated Content to Unfold Privacy Concerns with CBDCs

2025· article· W4416961858 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Sadegh Sangari, Atefeh Mashatan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryInformation privacyPrivacy policyCurrencyPrivacy softwareKey (lock)Privacy by DesignSocial mediaContent analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interest in central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) has motivated several initiatives around the world led by central banks. As the success of CBDCs depends on the public trust and use, it is crucial to understand the privacy concerns of users towards CBDCs as a significant determinant of their adoption and usage behavior. This paper introduces a novel datadriven approach utilizing user-generated content (UGC) from Reddit and aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) to assess dimensions of user privacy concerns and prioritize the specific issues contributing to overall privacy concerns regarding CBDCs. By integrating the concern for information privacy (CFIP) and the mobile users’ information privacy concerns (MUIPC) frameworks, this study highlights the key areas and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure a successful integration of CBDCs in the existing financial system. The findings reveal that perceived surveillance, perceived intrusion, concern of collection, improper access, unauthorized secondary use, and errors, all significantly contribute to the overall privacy concerns of users. The paper proposes a novel, objective approach to measure privacy concerns constructs using the content posted on social media and demonstrates its effectiveness to address typical limitations of survey-based studies, including small sample sizes and generalizability issues. Index Terms-Central bank digital currency (CBDC), Privacy concerns, Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA), Concern for information privacy (CFIP), Mobile users’ information privacy concerns (MUIPC).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security→French-language works237,207→