MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302460661

Always-on Augmented Reality and the 'Holo-ing Out' of the Individual

2015· article· en· W2302460661 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmented realityCensorshipVirtual realitySocial realityLawHeadsetSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceInternet privacyHuman–computer interactionSocial scienceTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facebook, with over 1.3 billion active monthly users and its recent acquisition of the virtual reality headset company Oculus Rift, may become an enormous virtual world without precedent. The author previously discussed this concept in a 2004 article concerning freedom of speech in online role-playing games such as World of Warcraft, when Facebook was still in its infancy. Although the controversy concerning freedom of speech in online games has died down over the past decade, Facebook’s censorship practices, together with its potential transformation into a mammoth virtual world, have reignited such concerns. The emergence of augmented reality (AR) glasses will aggravate the problem. Non-constitutional forms of law, such as the common law, will not adapt to this technology quickly enough. As a result, society will soon have to make a conceptual leap in constitutional values to avoid the permanent curtailment of its freedom of speech.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.042
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFreedom of Expression and DefamationFrench-language works237,207