Bangoura v Washington Post: Case Comment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 16, 2005 the Court of Appeal for Ontario handed down its decision in Bangoura v The Washington Post.\nThe case, concerning jurisdiction in Internet libel, was closely watched by the global media community. After the shock of the Australian High Court decision of Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick , the worldâs media companies desperately wanted to avoid any repeat of that decision which granted jurisdiction to a Victorian court to hear a defamation action against the New York Based Dow Jones company for articles that were published on one of their web sites.\nGiven that courts in common law countries are receptive to the decisions of each otherâs courts, a decision in favour of Cheickh Bangoura would have added to a growing corpus of law in common law jurisdictions that provides for the granting of jurisdiction to courts in the place of the plaintiffâs residence in situations of Internet libel.\nThe media corporations of the world got the result they wanted and Bangoura was denied the right to sue The Washington Post in Ontario.\nBut, was it a fair decision, was it a correct decision and was it decided the way it was for the right reasons?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".