MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W146019151

Are Hate Speech Provisions Anti-democratic?: An International Perspective

2010· article· en· W146019151 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Edger

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican University international law review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational lawDemocracyPerspective (graphical)Political scienceLawLaw and economicsSociologyComputer sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The various Commissions are governed by their respective provincial and federal "Human Rights Acts," which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, or other enumerated traits.5 This prohibition applies situationally to discrimination in housing, employment, and other settings.6 These Acts are intended to recognize the right to equality, 1. See Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.H-6 § § 2-4, 13 (establishing a civil remedy for the communication of hate messages); Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46 § 319 (Can.)(criminalizing communications that incite

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0170.016
Scholarly communication0.0180.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican University international law reviewSame topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207