MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606031205

Getting slapped: Defamation and your blog

2013· article· en· W2606031205 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)DamagesOrder (exchange)NiceLawPoint (geometry)SociologyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceBusinessPhilosophyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I’m sure everyone’s mother, like mine, at some point said, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” No doubt this was sound advice when you are 12, but as an adult and an information professional, it takes on a whole new meaning for those who blog, tweet, and otherwise comment on critical issues impacting their work and workplace communities. You have opinions, and potentially concerns about issues that you want to share with others who might be dealing with similar issues. Sometimes as part of those commentaries, it becomes necessary to not restrict yourself to remaining “nice” in order to communicate your thoughts, beliefs and perspectives about the practices or actions of others Two librarians who blog about publisher’s issues recently learned about the potential costs that are associated with not necessarily remaining “nice.” Dale Askey, a librarian at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada was sued by the Edwin Mellen Press and its founder, Herbert Richardson for a 2010 blog entry that was critical of the Press. The suits included both Mr. Askey and McMaster University and claimed that the blog entry defamed the Press and its founder. The lawsuits sought damages of over $4 million for the defamation. More recently, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the Auraria Library at the University of Colorado Denver received a letter from lawyers representing the Canadian Center for Science and Education, claiming that a series of blog entries posted by Mr. Beall defamed the Center and some of its related publications. The letter demanded that Mr. Beall “immediately remove” the offending posts and demanded an immediate payment of $10,000 for “attorneys fees and damages.” Failing to comply, the letter implied, would result in a lawsuit.

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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