Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network neutrality is a controversy of American origin, which, given the American foundations of the internet, has spread to a number of other jurisdictions, including Canada. In this article, I attempt to provide an introduction to the issues in a Canadian context for the non-specialist. Network neutrality is a debate about the public interests in freedom of expression, consumer protection, and economic growth and innovation, as they are mediated by the expansion of broadband internet access. I attempt to make the technical underpinnings comprehensible and to introduce many of the terms of art employed in the discussion. Comparisons of the Canadian and American legal contexts and of the issues in question clarify the potential requirement for regulatory intervention in Canada. I examine the issue as it presents itself in practice, that is, in the light of the actual functioning of the internet today. I summarize the principal arguments of the advocates and opponents of network neutrality regulation and weigh them against the public interests at stake. The intersection of the internet and broadcasting worlds enabled by broadband leads to the perennial issue of Canadian content. Does the internet represent a threat to the ability of Canadian broadcasting licensees to meet their Canadian content obligations and if so, should the technologies which underlie the network neutrality issue be employed in the interests of preserving the current Canadian model? I conclude, in accord with recent OECD and Federal Trade Commission study groups, that the case for regulatory action to control network operators’ prerogatives to manage access and traffic on the internet remains to be made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".