Privacy-Preserving Optimal Meeting Location Determination on Mobile Devices

Equipped with state-of-the-art smartphones and mobile devices, today's highly interconnected urban population is increasingly dependent on these gadgets to organize and plan their daily lives. These applications often rely on current (or preferred) locations of individual users or a group of users to provide the desired service, which jeopardizes their privacy; users do not necessarily want to reveal their current (or preferred) locations to the service provider or to other, possibly untrusted, users. In this paper, we propose privacy-preserving algorithms for determining an optimal meeting location for a group of users. We perform a thorough privacy evaluation by formally quantifying privacy-loss of the proposed approaches. In order to study the performance of our algorithms in a real deployment, we implement and test their execution efficiency on Nokia smartphones. By means of a targeted user-study, we attempt to get an insight into the privacy-awareness of users in location-based services and the usability of the proposed solutions.

Between Conservation and Development: Concretizing the First World Natural Heritage Site in the Alps Through Participatory Processes

This article presents an empirical interdisciplinary study of an extensive participatory process that was carried out in 2004 in the recently established World Natural Heritage Site “Jungfrau–Aletsch– Bietschhorn” in the Swiss Alps. The study used qualitative and quantitative empirical methods of social science to address the question of success factors in establishing and concretizing a World Heritage Site. Current international scientific and policy debates agree that the most important success factors in defining pathways for nature conservation and protection are: linking development and conservation, involving multiple stakeholders, and applying participatory approaches. The results of the study indicate that linking development and conservation implies the need to extend the reach of negotiations beyond the area of conservation, and to develop both a regional perspective and a focus on sustainable regional development. In the process, regional and local stakeholders are less concerned with defining sustainability goals than elaborating strategies of sustainability, in particular defining the respective roles of the core sectors of society and economy. However, the study results also show that conflicting visions and perceptions of nature and landscape are important underlying currents in such negotiations. They differ significantly between various stakeholder categories and are an important cause of conflicts occurring at various stages of the participatory process.

English and French causal connectives in contrast

Discourse connectives are often said to be language specific, and therefore not easily paired with a translation equivalent in a target language. However, few studies have assessed the magnitude and the causes of these divergences. In this paper, we provide an overview of the similarities and discrepancies between causal connectives in two typologically related languages: English and French. We first discuss two criteria used in the literature to account for these differences: the notion of domains of use and the information status of the cause segment. We then test the validity of these criteria through an empirical contrastive study of causal connectives in English and French, performed on a bidirectional corpus. Our results indicate that French and English connectives have only partially overlapping profiles and that translation equivalents are adequately predicted by these two criteria.

Leveraging Trust and Privacy Concerns in Online Social Networks: an Empirical Study

Unprecedented success of Online Social Networks, such as Facebook, has been recently overshadowed by the privacy risks they imply. Weary of privacy concerns and unable to construct their identity in the desired way, users may restrict or even terminate their platform activities. Even though this means a considerable business risk for these platforms, so far there have been no studies on how to enable social network providers to address these problems. This study fills this gap by adopting a fairness perspective to analyze related measures at the disposal of the provider. In a Structural Equation Model with 237 subjects we find that ensuring interactional and procedural justice are two important strategies to support user participation on the platform.

Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study

Objectives To examine the extent of multiplicity of data in trial reports and to assess the impact of multiplicity on meta-analysis results. Design Empirical study on a cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Data sources All Cochrane systematic reviews published from issue 3 in 2006 to issue 2 in 2007 that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD). We retrieved trial reports contributing to the first SMD result in each review, and downloaded review protocols. We used these SMDs to identify a specific outcome for each meta-analysis from its protocol. Review methods Reviews were eligible if SMD results were based on two to ten randomised trials and if protocols described the outcome. We excluded reviews if they only presented results of subgroup analyses. Based on review protocols and index outcomes, two observers independently extracted the data necessary to calculate SMDs from the original trial reports for any intervention group, time point, or outcome measure compatible with the protocol. From the extracted data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to calculate all possible SMDs for every meta-analysis. Results We identified 19 eligible meta-analyses (including 83 trials). Published review protocols often lacked information about which data to choose. Twenty-four (29%) trials reported data for multiple intervention groups, 30 (36%) reported data for multiple time points, and 29 (35%) reported the index outcome measured on multiple scales. In 18 meta-analyses, we found multiplicity of data in at least one trial report; the median difference between the smallest and largest SMD results within a meta-analysis was 0.40 standard deviation units (range 0.04 to 0.91). Conclusions Multiplicity of data can affect the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To reduce the risk of bias, reviews and meta-analyses should comply with prespecified protocols that clearly identify time points, intervention groups, and scales of interest.

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.