4,233 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2020
    1. Wave 1 income was collected as a continuous variable, with an average of $45,728, (N=15,351, SD=$51,616). Low-income respondents (with incomes below $25,000) had an average of $9,837 (N=3,049, SD=4,633). Wave 4 income was recorded as a categorical variable, however, where respondents indicated if they made under $5,000, between $5,000 and $10,000, between $10,000 and $15,000, etc. These categories were of different sizes, getting larger as the income grew larger. Therefore, in order to create comparable measures between Wave 1 and Wave 4, both incomes were converted to 5 groups, (1) household income of less than $25,000, (2) household income of $25,000 to $49,999, (3) household income of $50,000 to $74,000, (4) household income of $75,000 to $99,000, and (5) household income of over $100,000

      Upward mobility (dependent variable); data surrounding household incomes of Wave 1 and Wave 4

    2. stratum. This sampling method yielded a sample of 20,745 students in 7thto 12thgrade, with oversampling of some minority racialethnic groups, students with disabilities, and twins(Harris, 2018). Data were also collected from the parents of the in-home survey respondents, with an 85% success rate (Chen & Chantala, 2014).Wave 1 participants also reported their home address, which was then linked to a number of state-, county-, and Census tract-level variables from other sources. The present study used the school survey data, the in-home interview data, the parent survey data, and the data that was linked to state, county, and census-tracts, as described above. This study also used data from two subsequent waves of in-home interviews, specifically waves 3 and 4 (no new information relevant to the present study was collected in Wave 2). For each subsequent wave, AddHealth survey administrators recruited from the pool of Wave 1 respondents, no matter if they had responded to any wave since Wave 1. The present study used Wave 1 data for information about the youth’s socioeconomic status, social capital and other related variables. This wave collected from 1994 to 1995, when most respondents were between11 and 19 years old (n=20,745 youth) (Harris, 2013).This study also used information from the third wave of in-home interview data, namely all questions on informal mentoring. This wave wascollected in 2001 and 2002 when the youth (N=15,197) were 18 to 26 years old. The fourth wave of data was collected in 2008 and 2009, when the respondents were 25 to 33 years old (n=15,701). Data from the fourth wave wereused to calculate economic mobility, the key dependent variable for this study.

      Data source

    3. DataTo address these questions, this study used three wavesofthe restricted-use version of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth). AddHealth is a multi-wave longitudinal, nationally representative study of youth who have been followed since adolescence through to adulthood. The AddHealth data were collected by sampling 80 high schools stratified across region, school type, urbanicity, ethnic mix, and school size during the 1994-1995 academic year. Fifty-two feeder schools(commonly middle schools whose students were assumed to go to these study high schools)were also sampled, resulting in a total of 132 sample schools. (Chen & Chantala, 2014, Harris, 2013). When sample high schools had grades 7 to 12, feeder schools were not recruited, as the lower grades served the role of feeding in younger students (Chen, 2014). Seventy nine percent of schools approached agreed to be in the study (Chen & Chantala, 2014). An in-school survey was then administered to over 90,000 students from these 132 schools. This survey was given during a single day within a 45-to 60-minute class period (Chen & Chantala, 2014). Subsequent recruitment for in-home interviews was done by stratifying students in each school by grade and sex and then randomly choosing 17 students from each

      Data source

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. Governments’ use of purchased location data has exploded in recent months, as officials around the world have sought insights on how people are moving around during the Covid-19 pandemic. In general, governments have assured their citizens that any location data collected by the marketing industry and used by public health entities is anonymous. But the movements of a phone give strong clues to its ownership—for example, where the phone is located during the evenings and overnight is likely where the phone owner lives. The identity of the phone’s owner can further be corroborated if their workplace, place of worship, therapist’s office or other information about their real-world activities are known to investigators.

      private data is not anonymous as is purported

    1. Starr, T. N., Greaney, A. J., Hilton, S. K., Crawford, K. H., Navarro, M. J., Bowen, J. E., Tortorici, M. A., Walls, A. C., Veesler, D., & Bloom, J. D. (2020). Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding [Preprint]. Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.17.157982

    1. Kucharski, A. J., Klepac, P., Conlan, A. J. K., Kissler, S. M., Tang, M. L., Fry, H., Gog, J. R., Edmunds, W. J., Emery, J. C., Medley, G., Munday, J. D., Russell, T. W., Leclerc, Q. J., Diamond, C., Procter, S. R., Gimma, A., Sun, F. Y., Gibbs, H. P., Rosello, A., … Simons, D. (2020). Effectiveness of isolation, testing, contact tracing, and physical distancing on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in different settings: A mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30457-6

    1. Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H. J., Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., El-harakeh, A., Bognanni, A., Lotfi, T., Loeb, M., Hajizadeh, A., Bak, A., Izcovich, A., Cuello-Garcia, C. A., Chen, C., Harris, D. J., Borowiack, E., … Schünemann, H. J. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9

    1. Estimates say that 83% of us will be hit with a mental health crisis in our lives, we can all make the choices to invest wisely in this area to improve our ‘mental durability’ to deal with it properly.
    1. Oliver, N., Lepri, B., Sterly, H., Lambiotte, R., Deletaille, S., Nadai, M. D., Letouzé, E., Salah, A. A., Benjamins, R., Cattuto, C., Colizza, V., Cordes, N. de, Fraiberger, S. P., Koebe, T., Lehmann, S., Murillo, J., Pentland, A., Pham, P. N., Pivetta, F., … Vinck, P. (2020). Mobile phone data for informing public health actions across the COVID-19 pandemic life cycle. Science Advances, 6(23), eabc0764. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc0764

  2. May 2020
    1. Betsch, C., Wieler, L., Bosnjak, M., Ramharter, M., Stollorz, V., Omer, S., Korn, L., Sprengholz, P., Felgendreff, L., Eitze, S., & Schmid, P. (2020). Germany COVID-19 Snapshot MOnitoring (COSMO Germany): Monitoring knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviours, and public trust in the current coronavirus outbreak in Germany. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.2776

    1. With a single source IP address it's possible to quickly determine the type of devices on their network, and the social networks they frequent – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Soichat.com, TikTok, Line (a chat application), among many other domains.
    1. Not necessarily. Hosting companies tend to keep your backups in the same place as your primary files. You don’t carry around a copy of your birth certificate along with the actual one – you keep the real one safe at home for emergencies. So why not do the same for your backups? CodeGuard provides safe, offsite backup that is 100% independent from your hosting provider.
    1. If you’re switching from another cookie management solution to ours, you may want to migrate the consents you’ve already collected. This is useful for ensuring that users who have already given their consent under the previous solution are not presented with the cookie banner, and the related request for consent, again.
    1. “If you are a non-college graduate man you have a less than 50/50 shot of ever being married in your life” – Andrew YangIn the 1970s and ‘80s, there were about 17 million manufacturing jobs in the USToday, there are about 12 million of those jobsMore women are graduating from college than men58% of college graduates in the US are women
    1. Hartman, T. K., Stocks, T. V. A., McKay, R., Gibson Miller, J., Levita, L., Martinez, A. P., Mason, L., McBride, O., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., bennett, kate m, & Bentall, R. (2020). The Authoritarian Dynamic During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects on Nationalism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4tcv5

    1. Sure, anti-spam measures such as a CAPTCHA would certainly fall under "legitimate interests". But would targeting cookies? The gotcha with reCAPTCHA is that this legitimate-interest, quite-necessary-in-today's-world feature is inextricably bundled with unwanted and unrelated Google targeting (cookiepedia.co.uk/cookies/NID) cookies (_ga, _gid for v2; NID for v3).
    1. Google encouraging site admins to put reCaptcha all over their sites, and then sharing the resulting risk scores with those admins is great for security, Perona thinks, because he says it “gives site owners more control and visibility over what’s going on” with potential scammer and bot attacks, and the system will give admins more accurate scores than if reCaptcha is only using data from a single webpage to analyze user behavior. But there’s the trade-off. “It makes sense and makes it more user-friendly, but it also gives Google more data,”
    1. there’s no need to send consent request emails — provided that this basis of processing was stated in your privacy policy and that users had easy access to the notice prior to you processing their data. If this information was not available to users at the time, but one of these legal bases can currently legitimately apply to your situation, then your best bet would be to ensure that your current privacy notice meets requirements, so that you can continue to process your user data in a legally compliant way.
    1. In the absence of an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45(3), or of appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 46, including binding corporate rules, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation shall take place only on one of the following conditions:

      These conditions are individually sufficient and jointly necessary (https://hyp.is/e0RRFJCfEeqwuR_MillmPA/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency).

      Each of the conditions listed is a sufficient (but, by itself, not necessary) condition for legal transfer (T) of personal data to a third country or an international organisation. In other words, if any of those conditions is true, then legal transfer is also true.

      On the other hand, the list of conditions (C; let C be the disjunction of the conditions a-g: a or b or c ...) are jointly necessary for legal transfer (T) to be true. That is:

      • T cannot be true unless C (one of a or b or c ...) is true
      • if C is false (there is not one of a or b or c ... that is true), then T is false
      • T ⇒ C
      • C ⇐ T
    1. With that guidance in mind, and from a practical standpoint, consider keeping records of the following: The name or other identifier of the data subject that consented; The dated document, a timestamp, or note of when an oral consent was made; The version of the consent request and privacy policy existing at the time of the consent; and, The document or data capture form by which the data subject submitted his or her data.
    1. “Until CR 1.0 there was no effective privacy standard or requirement for recording consent in a common format and providing people with a receipt they can reuse for data rights.  Individuals could not track their consents or monitor how their information was processed or know who to hold accountable in the event of a breach of their privacy,” said Colin Wallis, executive director, Kantara Initiative.  “CR 1.0 changes the game.  A consent receipt promises to put the power back into the hands of the individual and, together with its supporting API — the consent receipt generator — is an innovative mechanism for businesses to comply with upcoming GDPR requirements.  For the first time individuals and organizations will be able to maintain and manage permissions for personal data.”
    1. generic-sounding term may be interpreted as something more specific than intended: I want to be able to use "data interchange" in the most general sense. But if people interpret it to mean this specific standard/protocol/whatever, I may be misunderstood.

      The definition given here

      is the concept of businesses electronically communicating information that was traditionally communicated on paper, such as purchase orders and invoices.

      limits it to things that were previously communicated on paper. But what about things for which paper was never used, like the interchange of consent and consent receipts for GDPR/privacy law compliance, etc.?

      The term should be allowed to be used just as well for newer technologies/processes that had no previous roots in paper technologies.