MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515330203 · doi:10.1108/14636690310507207

The digital divide and the competitive behaviour of Internet backbone providers

2003· article· en· W1515330203 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfo · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetLiberalizationTelecommunicationsPaymentBusinessPlaintiffSubject (documents)Settlement (finance)Digital divideDeveloping countryInternet service providerPublic relationsInternet privacyEconomicsComputer scienceEconomic growthPolitical scienceFinanceMarket economyLawWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Against the background of international telecommunications liberalization and declining settlement payments for many developing countries, charging arrangements for Internet interconnection services (IIS) have become a controversial issue. Following on from the author’s article in the previous issue of info, which reviewed the complaints and counter‐arguments regarding whether current charging arrangements for Internet interconnection are inequitable and subject to anti‐competitive behaviour on the part of Internet backbone providers, this paper reviews proposals for action and makes a number of recommendations as to how to move the debate usefully forward, including a number of positive measures that developing countries can take themselves, as well as measures requiring cooperation among complainant and “complacent” countries.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfoSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207