MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7072791479

Правове регулювання захисту персональних даних: GDPR та законодавство США, Канади й України

2024· article· en· W7072791479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific Issues of Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University Series pedagogy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData Protection Act 1998General Data Protection RegulationInformation privacy lawLegislationTransparency (behavior)Personally identifiable informationInformation privacyContext (archaeology)Legislature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article provides a detailed analysis of the legal regulation of personal data protection in various jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United States, Canada, and Ukraine. Special attention is given to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is one of the strictest international standards in this field. The main provisions of the GDPR are examined, such as the principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, and data minimization, as well as the rights of data subjects, including the right to access, rectification, and erasure of data. The impact of GDPR on international businesses is analyzed, showing how it has forced companies worldwide to adapt their data processing systems to comply with European legal requirements. The section on the United States focuses on California state law, particularly the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which grants citizens rights over their personal data. Although the U.S. legislative framework is fragmented compared to GDPR, the CCPA is a significant step toward protecting the privacy of American citizens. Canadian legislation is represented by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which ensures the protection of personal data in commercial relationships. PIPEDA strikes a balance between business interests and citizens’ rights, providing flexibility in the use of personal data while adhering to principles of transparency and consent. The article also analyzes the process of harmonizing Ukraine’s legislation with the GDPR, which is a crucial step in the context of the country’s integration into the European legal space. Ukrainian legal reforms focus on strengthening citizens’ rights and improving mechanisms for controlling personal data processing. The article offers a comparative analysis of the discussed legal systems, highlighting key differences in data protection approaches. Unlike the EU, where regulation is comprehensive and stringent, U.S. laws are fragmented. In Canada, PIPEDA creates a more flexible system oriented toward the commercial sector. Ukraine, meanwhile, is on its way to full harmonization with European standards, which will enhance the legal protection of citizens in the digital economy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific Issues of Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University Series pedagogySame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207