MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613078664

Multiple Publication and Online Defamation – Recent Reforms in Ireland and the United Kingdom

2011· article· en· W2613078664 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

VenueMasaryk University Journal of Law and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureKingdomPolitical scienceThe InternetLawStatement (logic)Common lawBalance (ability)Computer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he multiple-publication rule, allowing for a new cause of action each time a defamatory statement is published, has applied to non-internet publications for well over a century. Its application to online publications however, has raised particular difficulties. Despite the rule finding judicial favour in most common-law jurisdictions (the US being a noted exception) the legislature in Ireland has recently abandoned it and plans are in place in the United Kingdom to do likewise. On the other hand Australian and Canadian courts have rejected arguments to abandon the rule. This article discusses both the legal and policy related reasoning behind the recent legislative developments in Ireland and the United Kingdom and considers whether these jurisdictions have tipped the balance too far in favour of publishers on the internet.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.210 · 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