MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514382403

Mind the Gap: A New Model for Internet Child Pornography Regulation in Canada

2009· article· en· W1514382403 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara M. Smyth

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentChild pornographyLegislationThe InternetPornographyPolitical scienceEnforcementInternet governanceLaw enforcementInternet privacyTreatyBusinessPublic relationsLawPoliticsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's child pornography provisions were enacted just as the computer revolution was building momentum. At that time, very few policy makers had any idea about what the internet was, how it could be used, and its vast potential for facilitating criminal activity on an international scale. Although Parliament has proven to be both willing and able to respond to the child pornography problem, our legislators have not implemented appropriate regulatory measures to combat the circulation of these materials on the internet. Domestic legislation is clearly necessary to target child pornography offenders; however, various problems with the way that child pornography is now collected and distributed make the use of domestic regulation by itself unworkable. Parliament must focus on effective systemic enforcement of internet content by securing the cooperation of service providers at home and abroad. The Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, which Canada signed but did not ratify, provides an ideal framework for the implementation of new regulatory measures to achieve this goal. It enables many countries to work together by pursuing a common criminal policy based on international cooperation and the harmonization of domestic legislation. It requires signatory states to update their technological capabilities for combating digital crime by implementing sophisticated evidence gathering techniques to lawfully intercept online communications, share resources, and obtain information about those who use the internet for criminal purposes. Parliament must ratify this treaty and work with other nations to target the proliferation of real child pornography on the internet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207