Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36906709›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Occupant privacy perception, awareness, and preferences in smart office environments.

Beatrice Li, Arash Tavakoli, Arsalan Heydarian

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Beatrice LiDepartment of Systems Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA.
Arash TavakoliDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Arsalan HeydarianDepartment of Systems Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA. ah6rx@virginia.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Building management systems tout numerous benefits, such as energy efficiency and occupant comfort but rely on vast amounts of data from various sensors. Advancements in machine learning algorithms make it possible to extract personal information about occupants and their activities beyond the intended design of a non-intrusive sensor. However, occupants are not informed of data collection and possess different privacy preferences and thresholds for privacy loss. While privacy perceptions and preferences are most understood in smart homes, limited studies have evaluated these factors in smart office buildings, where there are more users and different privacy risks. To better understand occupants' perceptions and privacy preferences, we conducted twenty-four semi-structured interviews between April 2022 and May 2022 on occupants of a smart office building. We found that data modality features and personal features contribute to people's privacy preferences. The features of the collected modality define data modality features - spatial, security, and temporal context. In contrast, personal features consist of one's awareness of data modality features and data inferences, definitions of privacy and security, and the available rewards and utility. Our proposed model of people's privacy preferences in smart office buildings helps design more effective measures to improve people's privacy.

Indexed as

PrivacyWorking ConditionsAlgorithmsData CollectionHumansPerception

Identifiers

PMID36906709
PMCPMC10008538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read10
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.