Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Martin, K."
  1. Martin, K.; Shilton, K.: Why experience matters to privacy : how context-based experience moderates consumer privacy expectations for mobile applications (2016) 0.02 
    0.018982807 = product of:
  0.037965614 = sum of:
    0.037965614 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=3045,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3045, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3045)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3045,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3045, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3045)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Two dominant theoretical models for privacy-individual privacy preferences and context-dependent definitions of privacy-are often studied separately in information systems research. This paper unites these theories by examining how individual privacy preferences impact context-dependent privacy expectations. The paper theorizes that experience provides a bridge between individuals' general privacy attitudes and nuanced contextual factors. This leads to the hypothesis that, when making judgments about privacy expectations, individuals with less experience in a context rely more on individual preferences such as their generalized privacy beliefs, whereas individuals with more experience in a context are influenced by contextual factors and norms. To test this hypothesis, 1,925 American users of mobile applications made judgments about whether varied real-world scenarios involving data collection and use met their privacy expectations. Analysis of the data suggests that experience using mobile applications did moderate the effect of individual preferences and contextual factors on privacy judgments. Experience changed the equation respondents used to assess whether data collection and use scenarios met their privacy expectations. Discovering the bridge between 2 dominant theoretical models enables future privacy research to consider both personal and contextual variables by taking differences in experience into account.
    Date
    20. 7.2016 18:22:57
    Type
    a
  2. Martin, K.: Predatory predictions and the ethics of predictive analytics (2023) 0.00 
    0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=946,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this paper, I critically examine ethical issues introduced by predictive analytics. I argue firms can have a market incentive to construct deceptively inflated true-positive outcomes: individuals are over-categorized as requiring a penalizing treatment and the treatment leads to mistakenly thinking this label was correct. I show that differences in power between firms developing and using predictive analytics compared to subjects can lead to firms reaping the benefits of predatory predictions while subjects can bear the brunt of the costs. While profitable, the use of predatory predictions can deceive stakeholders by inflating the measurement of accuracy, diminish the individuality of subjects, and exert arbitrary power. I then argue that firms have a responsibility to distinguish between the treatment effect and predictive power of the predictive analytics program, better internalize the costs of categorizing someone as needing a penalizing treatment, and justify the predictions of subjects and general use of predictive analytics. Subjecting individuals to predatory predictions only for a firms' efficiency and benefit is unethical and an arbitrary exertion of power. Firms developing and deploying a predictive analytics program can benefit from constructing predatory predictions while the cost is borne by the less powerful subjects of the program.
    Type
    a
  3. Lunin, L.F.; Martin, K.; Hastings, S.K.: Design: information technologies and creative practices (2009) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  4. Martin, K.: Understanding the forces for and against electronic information publishing : it's six-of-one and half-dozen of the other (1994) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=8416,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 8416, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reviews the 6 principal forces driving electronic information publishing forward: volume of information; need to search for information; information richness; demands of management and distribution of information; low cost technologies (such as CD-ROM) and environmental impact making paper less attractive. Lists the corresponding forces inhibiting this change from print to electronic publishing; habit; incompatible standards; incompatible authoring processes; display incompatibilities; and portability limitations. Concludes with a list of key areas emerging for electronic information on CD-ROM; reference materials; catalogues; bibliographic and demographic data; merketing materials; educational materials; and records (replacing microfilm and microfiche)
    Type
    a
  5. Martin, K.; Quan-Haase, A.: Are e-books replacing print books? : tradition, serendipity, and opportunity in the adoption and use of e-books for historical research and teaching (2013) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=748,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article aims to understand the adoption of e-books by academic historians for the purpose of teaching and research. This includes an investigation into their knowledge about and perceived characteristics of this evolving research tool. The study relied on Rogers's model of the innovation-decision process to guide the development of an interview guide. Ten semistructured interviews were conducted with history faculty between October 2010 and December 2011. A grounded theory approach was employed to code and analyze the data. Findings about tradition, cost, teaching innovations, and the historical research process provide the background for designing learning opportunities for the professional development of historians and the academic librarians who work with them. While historians are open to experimenting with e-books, they are also concerned about the loss of serendipity in digital environments, the lack of availability of key resources, and the need for technological transparency. The findings show that Rogers's knowledge and persuasion stages are cyclical in nature, with scholars moving back and forth between these two stages. Participants interviewed were already weighing the five characteristics of the persuasion stage without having much knowledge about e-books. The study findings have implications for our understanding of the diffusion of innovations in academia: both print and digital collections are being used in parallel without one replacing the other.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes