MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340756903

International and Canadian law rules applicable to cyber attacks by state and non-state actors

2012· article· en· W2340756903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew E. Castel

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEspionageComputer securityHackerState (computer science)CyberwarfareLawProsperityCyber-attackThe InternetInternational lawIndustrial espionagePoliticsDoorsPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay, which contains a broad ranging overview of several important issues raised by the recent number of cyber attacks in Canada and elsewhere, begins with a definition of cyberspace and cyber war. It is followed by a brief survey of some cyber attacks that have occurred in Canada and elsewhere in recent years. The first part addresses the question whether present rules of international law applicable to armed attacks using kinetic weapons apply to the wide notion of cyber attacks by a state actor against the government and critical civilian infrastructures of another state and concludes that they do. However, some grey zones still exist which need to be clarified. Not all cyber attacks are of the same gravity and present international law rules were adopted before the age of the Internet. Today, states that are more dependent on highly advanced technology are subject to greater risks and in turn demand greater protective measures.\nThe last part of the essay is concerned with cyber attacks as cyber crimes when carried out by non-state actors, mostly from a Canadian law point of view. The conclusion lists a number of proposals to address the present dangers posed by cyber attacks on the international and Canadian levels.

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 score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207