A Summary of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Jurisdiction in Cyberspace Project : “Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace : A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet”
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Suite à plus de deux années de recherches, le projet de l’American Bar Association (ABA) concernant la juridiction du cyberespace, « Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet », a été publié dans l’édition du mois d’août 2000 de la revue juridique The Business Lawyer. Ce rapport poursuivait deux objectifs distincts : Tout d’abord, effectuer une analyse globale des complexités potentielles entourant les conflits juridictionnels découlant du commerce en ligne. Ensuite, élaborer une liste exhaustive des solutions pouvant être utilisées pour résoudre de tels conflits. Le présent article se veut un résumé concis et accessible des trois grandes sections du « Cyberspace Jurisdiction Report » : (1) les solutions proposées aux problèmes juridictionnels découlant des conflits résultant du commerce électronique ; (2) afin d’appuyer les solutions proposées : l’utilisation d’exemples d’occasions où la technologie a déjà, par le passé, causé la métamorphose de certains paradigmes juridictionnels; et (3) afin d’appuyer les solutions proposées : l’utilisation d’un contexte doctrinal."
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it