Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long gone are the days when the Internet's Domain-Name System could be administered by a few computer and network scientists acting as self-appointed or matter-of-fact trustees of what was then a military research project funded by the U.S. Government. With the Internet becoming a commercialized communications network for the masses, resources and responsibilities for the Internet's key function of naming and addressing servers around the world had to shift from private individuals or university departments to new organisations dedicated to the task of allocating and managing domain names. During this transition the new organisations became more and more aware of the powers they inherited. Naturally, one did not have to wait long for national governments to take a stand on the issues involved. While there seems to exist an abundance of legal opinion in regard to the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, the U.S.-based guardian of the Internet's (official) name space, relatively little attention has been paid to the question of regulation by national governments when it comes to their country code Top-Level Domains. This article tries to help fill the gap by taking a closer look at the Canadian dot-ca Top-Level Domain-Name and the Canadian Government's current and possibly future regulatory regime. Emphasis is put on answering four key questions: What can be regulated? How can it be regulated? What is the current situation in Canada? And should there be regulation in the first place?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".