MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185022793 · doi:10.7202/1069245ar

SETTING A POSITIVE AGENDA FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE AT THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY (WSIS): OF TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANKIND

2020· article· en· W2185022793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alana Maurushat

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitInformation societyInternet governanceCivil societyThe InternetPolitical scienceDignityCorporate governanceHuman rightsPublic relationsPublic administrationSociologyLawManagementComputer scienceEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet Governance emerged as a contentious and key issue at the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva. Against the backdrop of digital solidarity – the benefits of the Information Society should be shared amongst citizens of both developed and developing countries to ensure fair and equitable development for all – the author advocates the need for Civil Society to work together to develop a unified voice and a consolidated list of critical issues. The author provides an overview of some of the contentious issues leading up to the Geneva Phase of WSIS. The author also looks at some of the issues addressed in two critical meetings following the Geneva Summit: The International Telecommunication Union Workshop on Internet Governance (ITU Workshop) and the United Nations Information and Communications Technologies Task Force Global Forum on Internet Governance (UN Global Forum). This is followed by an analysis and discussion of what the author perceives to be the most important issues on Internet Governance from the perspective of enhancing human rights and promoting human dignity in the Information Society. The author identifies three prominent issues: appropriate and effective capacity building, language and cultural rights in the domain name system, and a cautionary approach to model laws which could impact on human rights. The author concludes by offering a strategy on how civil society can be most effective in its contribution to Internet Governance issues for the upcoming WSIS meeting in Tunis.

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)0.000
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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207