MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067717618

Negotiating Exchange of Private Information for Web Service Eligibility

2003· article· en· W7067717618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVendorNegotiationService providerService (business)Private information retrievalWeb serviceBusiness informationBusiness model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Private information about individuals that engage in e-commerce business transactions is of economic value to businesses for market analysis and for identifying possible future partners. For various reasons, maintaining the privacy of that information is important to these individuals, including avoiding unwelcome communication, spam, from those businesses or their associates. In this paper we advocate a negotiation strategy to be used by an individual deciding whether or not to divulge information to a specific electronic business for a specific purpose, such as achieving preferential status with a service provider or a discounted price from a vendor. The strategy makes use of explanation techniques for expert systems that answer 'how', 'what if' and 'why not' questions. We assume that the business practices of the provider or vendor are available as explicit business rules, including the eligibility criteria for preferential status and price discounts. Our prototype allows the user to obtain a proof that the information to be given is both necessary and sufficient for achieving the eligibility / discount - answering 'how' eligibility is established. The communication protocol with the prototype also includes 'what if' dialogues allowing a user to assess the difficulty and benefits of achieving eligibility, and 'why not' dialogues for identifying missing eligibility criteria. The prototype is built upon the emerging standard Web Services architecture. Thus the prototype allows a business to expose its business practices, educating its customers, so it can provide the most appropriate service for a given individual. The prototype engages the customer to assess the benefit of exposing some private information to the business. Through the 'what if' interface, the customer can be aware of the complete set of information that will be necessary to achieve the desired eligibility before any private information is actually transmitted. We offer an example where a user is negotiating a car price discount.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207