Data Management Plan (DMP) for Language Data under the New General Da-ta Protection Regulation (GDPR)
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
GDPR is more permissive to research use than commercial use.
“While GDPR is more permissive to research use than commercial use (Kamocki et al., 2018)”
From What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? (2024) · cites this paper as Kamocki et al., 2018
In the section headed “5.1(f) of the GDPR” (page unavailable), the paper says research can arguably be a legitimate interest that permits processing, subject to data subjects’ rights. It does not say GDPR is more permissive for research use than for commercial use; the comparative part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGDPR imposes requirements on the collection of reviewing data, including informed consent, clear reflection on data collected and purpose, storage and management, withdrawal and consent revocation.
“it still imposes requirements on the collection of reviewing data, including informed consent, a clear reflection on what exact data is collected and for what purpose, how the data is stored and managed, whether the data can be withdrawn and consent revoked, etc.”
From What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? (2024) · cites this paper as Kamocki et al., 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Choukri, K.; Mapelli, V.; Mazo, H.; Popescu V. (2016). ELRA Activities and Services. In: Proceedings of LREC 2016, pp. 463-468.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?
Kuznetsov, I., Afzal, O. M., Dercksen, K., Dycke, N., Goldberg, A., Hope, T., Hovy, D., Kummerfeld, J. K., Lauscher, A., Leyton-Brown, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06563 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kamocki, P., Mapelli, V., & Choukri, K.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
- Published
- 2018-05
- ISSN
- 2522-2686
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
