MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470117286

Information Policy Interactions: Net Neutrality and Access to Information in US and India

2016· article· en· W2470117286 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramesh Subramanian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative International Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNet neutralityThe InternetNeutralityDigital divideContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Digital economyInternet accessBusinessPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceGeographyWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tremendous growth and ubiquity of the Internet in today’s world makes access to information much easier than ever before. Many global forums consider access to information as a basic right and an absolute necessity for the sustainable economic development of nations and an indispensable instrument for human growth. Net neutrality is the concept that all citizens should have equal and non-discriminate access to the Internet and networked services, without any restrictions. This paper looks at the history and evolution of the concept of net neutrality and the associated concept of access to information in the context of the United States and India. U.S. and India are chosen since they are both large democracies accounting for the second and third largest number of Internet users. US is the world’s largest and mature economy, whereas India is an emerging economy. Both countries are current dealing with the issue of digital divide, and both countries are currently embroiled in animated debates concerning net neutrality and access to information. The paper offers a contrast between the approaches taken by the two countries and the interactions among the government, regulators, the law and citizens. The results of this study could be used as a basis by countries that are embarking on information policy formulations.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative International ManagementSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207