MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321167987 · doi:10.1177/1077699013506351

Book Review: <i>Access Contested: Security, Identity, and Resistance in Asian Cyberspace</i> , by Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain

2013· article· en· W2321167987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James F. Scotton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberspaceBattleMedia studiesPopulationGovernment (linguistics)The InternetPoliticsPolitical scienceIdentity (music)SociologyLawHistoryComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contested: Security, Identity, and Resistance in Asian Cyberspace. Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. $48 hbk. $24 pbk. 432 pp.Reviewed by: James F. Scotton, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA DOI: 10.1177/1077699013506351Access Contested is the third volume in the editors' series (Access Denied, 2008; Access Controlled, 2010). Deibert and Rohozinski are at the University of Toronto while Palfrey and Zittrain are at Harvard. With expertise in political science, computer science, and law, they are considered by many to be the leading team in monitoring cyberspace battles of freedom versus control. This volume focuses on Asia. The editors believe the shift in cyberspace population to the South and the East in the world can make this the crucial area for the battle over who controls the Internet.It is a dense, fact-filled book that will require some serious attention to get through. Overall, it will tend to serve more as a resource for researchers than a reader even for a graduate seminar. The research is impressive with the China chapter alone having 151 notes, most of them quite recent and especially helpful to researchers trying to track down online government and other sources on these Internet topics. The writing is on the whole clear, but in some chapters, the details become a bit overwhelming to a reader trying to grasp the general sense of a chapter.The editors contribute two general chapters in which they suggest who controls the Internet is on the brink of being decided. The battle is between state sovereignty every- where (in this case in Asia) and the generally privately owned Internet infrastructure. The editors see corporate entities such as Google inevitably lining up with individual Internet users because it is the only way either can have any control in the face of steadily increasing government pressures.There are eight essays on Internet control struggles, some focused on individual countries (two on Malaysia, none on India). There are ten additional chapters on indi- vidual countries (China and South Korea are included but nothing found even in the Index on Japan). These chapters compare countries on the extent of government Internet filtering and whether policies are transparent and consistent. The editors said the countries included are those where they believed there was the most to learn about Internet filtering by authorities.The editors point out that to the extent that governments can control the Internet they can make sure that their own citizens will experience a different view of the world. Governments have been trying to isolate their citizens from critical outside views for centuries, of course, but the editors suggest that increasing dependence on the Internet is making it easier for authorities to do this. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.061

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournalism & Mass Communication QuarterlySame topicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207