MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7033393794

Privacy Protection for Mobile Health (MHEALTH) in Nigeria: A Consideration of the EU Regime for Data Protection as a Conceptual Model for Reforming Nigeria's Privacy Legislation

2015· article· en· W7033393794 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNigerian Communications CommissionCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie University
KeywordsData Protection Act 1998LegislationInformation privacy lawFTC Fair Information PracticeInformation privacyConceptual modelPrivacy lawNoveltyHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of mobile technologies to provide and deliver healthcare is known as Mobile Health. Nigeria is one of the countries witnessing a profound use of these technologies. While discussions have focused on the potentials of this technologies to address the challenges in the health system, nothing is said about the risks from unauthorized disclosure or misuse of health information provided by users. This becomes worse when Nigeria's laws do not offer adequate protection. As Mobile Health is a novelty to Nigeria, this thesis looks to relevant international standards on privacy protection. It does this by examining the European regime for protection of personal information. To prescribe this regime for Nigeria however, the differences in the socio-economic and cultural realities between Nigeria and Europe are presented and examined. This thesis argues that notwithstanding, Nigeria can draw on the European regime to reform its privacy framework.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.018
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0100.007
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→