MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091149700 · doi:10.4018/jthi.2009010101

The Case for Open Access Networks

2009· article· en· W2091149700 on OpenAlex
Don Flournoy, Rolland LeBrasseur, Sylvie Albert

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

VenueInternational Journal of Technology and Human Interaction · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNet neutralityContext (archaeology)The InternetIncentiveOpen standardBusinessWork (physics)Internet accessPrincipal (computer security)TelecommunicationsInternet privacyComputer scienceComputer securityWorld Wide WebEconomicsInteroperabilityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efforts to keep the broadband Internet a free and open public utility are much in the news. In the context of the Network Society, the authors examine some of the publicly stated arguments and positions being taken in the articulation of “net neutrality” and “open source” practices and principles. The article explores the difficult technical challenges present in maintaining “open access” telecommunications networks using proprietary technologies. From a global perspective, industry groups have strong incentives to work together to adopt universal technical standards. With more open technical standards, open source applications and products can be accelerated and made more pervasive. Collaboration among businesses, national governments, and public sectors are seen as key to implementing policies that lead to public participation in economic and social development both locally and globally. The principal means by which all these approaches can be sustained is to keep the Internet accessible, free and open for all.

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 score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.361 · 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