MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517670737 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v6i1.42426

Canada and the Challenges of Cyberspace Governance and Security

2013· article· en· W1517670737 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ron Deibert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberspaceThe InternetCensorshipPolitical scienceChampionInternet governanceNational securityLegitimacyGovernment (linguistics)LawCivil societyCorporate governanceSociologyPublic relationsBusinessPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Canada stood with the United States and Britain in refusing to sign on to a new, statecontrolled future for the Internet, at December’s World Conference on Information Technology, it certainly made the federal government appear to be a stalwart champion of Internet freedom. But in reality, Canada’s approach to cyberspace governance and security has, at best, sent mixed signals about our commitment to Internet freedom. At worst, it has actually contributed to increasing on-line censorship and surveillance by the very undemocratic and illiberal regimes that Canada voted against at the conference. Unfortunately this is a dangerous time for Canada to wallow in aimlessness: when it comes to cyberspace governance and security, the momentum is headed in the direction of greater state control. As demographic realities indicate, Internet usage will increasingly belong to the global South and East, where freedom is an unsettled and elusive concept. If Canada truly seeks to guard against the Internet falling captive to the controls sought by repressive regimes, such as those in China and Russia, it will have to offer the world a compelling, competing vision that demonstrates integrity and dedication to genuine Internet freedom. Among other things, that means moving beyond traditional top-down, state-centred models of security, which are a poor fit for a decentralized, global, publicly shared, but largely privately developed, communications network. Imposing conventional, state led policing frameworks on cyberspace — for instance, in the name of fighting cyber crime — only provides legitimacy to regimes abroad when they bring their own state powers to censor Internet communications. It also means thinking more carefully about how much we should tolerate our Canadian technology developers continuing to supply tools of repression to the foreign regimes who seek to dominate their own people. Canada has the potential to take on a leadership role in showing the world what it means to truly stand for freedom in cyberspace. But providing global leadership will require that our own government commits to reducing state controls and surveillance here at home, encouraging greater transparency and checks on state power over the Internet, while enhancing privacy protections. Ultimately, the only way the Canadian government can truly help preserve and promote a decentralized and unfettered Internet for the world’s future is to demonstrate that it is genuinely committed to promoting the same thing here at home.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
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 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207