RESUMO
Many of our spoken languages are endangered and rapidly becoming extinct. Due to this, there are attempts to preserve as many of those languages as possible. One preservation approach is combining data collection and artificial intelligence-based language models. However, current data collection methods may only capture static data from a dynamic cognitive process. If data are not genuinely capturing the dynamic process, it raises questions about whether they capture all the essential knowledge about how a language functions. Here, we discuss the implications of this issue and its importance in preserving endangered languages.
Assuntos
Inteligência Artificial , Idioma , HumanosAssuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Confidencialidade , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Havaiano Nativo ou Outro Ilhéu do Pacífico , Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Confidencialidade/psicologia , Confidencialidade/normas , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/ética , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/normas , Humanos , Havaiano Nativo ou Outro Ilhéu do Pacífico/etnologia , Havaiano Nativo ou Outro Ilhéu do Pacífico/psicologia , Nova Zelândia , ConfiançaAssuntos
Redes de Comunicação de Computadores/normas , Confidencialidade/normas , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/normas , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/normas , Redes de Comunicação de Computadores/organização & administração , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/organização & administração , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Humanos , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Internacionalidade , Nova Zelândia , Autonomia PessoalRESUMO
AIM: To examine the practices used by New Zealand's 20 district health boards (DHBs) to protect patient privacy when patient information is used for research, and particularly practices for de-identifying information. METHOD: An e-mailed questionnaire survey, using New Zealand's Official Information Act to request information on the policies and practices of each DHB. RESULTS: 19/20 DHBs (95%) responded to the survey, one of which reported that it did not provide patient information for research. 18/18 (100%) of the DHBs that reported providing patient information for research required the project to have ethics approval. 18/18 (100%) of the DHBs that offered patient data for research also required individual patient consent and/or de-identification of the information before it was used for research. 14/18 DHBs (78%) deidentified data before releasing it for research, 8/18 DHBs (48%) sought individual patient consent before releasing data for research, and 5/18 (28%) used both methods. Other measures to protect privacy included confidentiality agreements, encryption and cybersecurity procedures. CONCLUSION: Our findings show DHBs self-report that they have sufficient measures in place to protect privacy when patient information is used for research. However, these measures need to be continuously evaluated against rapidly evolving international practices and technological developments.