MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537370742 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2008v33n1a1886

The Last Mile: Service Tiers Versus Infrastructure Development and the Debate on Internet Neutrality

2008· article· en· W1537370742 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kevin G. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNet neutralityThe InternetBroadbandInternet accessLast mile (transportation)BusinessService (business)NeutralityUniversal serviceLegislatureTelecommunicationsMilePolitical scienceMarketingEngineeringComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the current debate on Internet neutrality is examined in terms of four frames: legislative reform, network economics, Internet practices and culture, and broadband policy. The paper is critical of the broadband carriers’ (telephone and cable companies) attempt to institute a “new Internet” based on discriminatory service tiers. It is vital for the Internet community to oppose the introduction of service tiers, but public debate on the future of the Internet should not be limited to the problem of service tiers. A more enlightened framework, consistent with over two decades of network policy, would re-frame the debate at the more fundamental level of infrastructure development. Policy recommendations are made to ensure adequate financing for the development of local broadband networks in the public interest.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.038
Scholarly communication0.0160.018
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207