MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

REGULATORY BARRIERS TO PERSONAL DATA MANAGEMENT. AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIMES

2025· article· W7131835571 on OpenAlex
K. V. Sidorov, Nikita Golubev, Alexey Evdokimov, Sergey L. Shvyrev

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Aspects of Population Health · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData Protection Act 1998General Data Protection RegulationScope (computer science)AmbiguityContext (archaeology)European unionInformation privacy lawIdentification (biology)Information privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance. In the context of global digital transformation, personal data management, especially in such a sensitive area as healthcare, faces significant regulatory and legal barriers. The key challenge is the ambiguity of regulation related to the rights of data subjects, and the legal basis for data processing. Different jurisdictions demonstrate a range of approaches to solving this issue, from strict European standards to models with an emphasis on state control or corporate responsibility, complicating international cooperation and preventing innovation in data management. Purpose. To undertake a comparative analysis of international legal regimes for personal data management, aimed at identifying common regulatory barriers and determining the scope of restrictions on the rights of subjects in socially significant areas. Material and methods. The work is based on a comparative legal analysis of documents regulating personal data protection in key jurisdictions: the European Union (GDPR), Asia (PDPA of Singapore, PDPO of Hong Kong, DPDP Act of India, PIPL of China) and North America (CCPA/HIPAA of the USA, PIPEDA of Canada). The methodology includes a legal analysis of articles of regulations and laws, a synthesis of data processing principles, and identification of general and specific legal barriers. Results. It has been established that there are three main components that shape universal regulatory barriers: 1) the scope of rights of data subjects and their limitations for the public interest; 2) strict requirements for operators to protect, minimize and limit processing purposes; 3) differentiation of regulation for the public and private sectors. It has been revealed that even in strict regimes like GDPR, legislation provides for flexible data processing mechanisms without direct consent for research purposes. Conclusion. The analysis demonstrates that modern regulation of personal data management strikes a balance between protecting individual rights and promoting the public interest. The identified universal contours of regulatory barriers and the exceptions stipulated by legislation for scientific and medical purposes can be taken into account within the Russian jurisdiction to develop a well-balanced legal model that meets the challenges of digital transformation of healthcare. Keywords: personal data; legal regulation; comparative legal analysis; GDPR; digital transformation in healthcare.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.296 · 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