MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081305437 · doi:10.1109/mspec.2002.1038572

Virtual borders, real laws [Internet activity and treaties]

2002· article· en· W2081305437 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

VenueIEEE Spectrum · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsPrivacy Analytics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionThe InternetOrder (exchange)BusinessBlocking (statistics)Service (business)Control (management)Internet service providerLawPublic domainDomain (mathematical analysis)Service providerInternet privacyLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsMarketingComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National governments are working to tame activity on the Internet. They have worked steadily to extend control over online activities that they believe affect their interests, even when the activities occur outside their borders. These usually involve what governments regard as their domain: protecting public order, enforcing commercial laws, and, occasionally, protecting consumer interests. Methods have included assertions or legal jurisdiction based on where material is accessible instead of where it originates, and the blocking of sites, service providers, or entire high level domains from access by citizens. Such instances are mentioned in this article. Whilst larger companies are able to defend themselves against overseas lawsuits, individuals and smaller organizations lack the resources to defend what are often normal business activities at home, but could violate the laws of local jurisdictions in countries around the world. The problems of libel are discussed as are the blocking of certain sites by certain countries. Efforts to draw up Internet treaties are also mentioned.

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 score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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