MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748845102 · doi:10.1080/23738871.2017.1360375

Iran and the global politics of internet governance

2017· article· en· W2748845102 on OpenAlexaff
Roozbeh Safshekan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cyber Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet governanceThe InternetCorporate governancePoliticsPolitical scienceState (computer science)HegemonyGlobal governanceCybercrimeOrder (exchange)Public administrationLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses the internet governance agenda pursued by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) since 2003. Surveying the official documents of five major global events on internet governance, the article illustrates that the IRI agenda has been preoccupied with three major issues: first, the digital divide and the significant potential of the internet for economic development; second, the dominant role of developed countries in the management of critical internet resources; and third, the role of non-state actors in internet governance. The latter issue constitutes the main area of contention between different Iranian presidents. The IRI’s state-centric agenda for internet governance under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005–2013) sought to limit the role of non-state actors in order to enhance the hegemony of the state vis-à-vis Iranian society. During the presidencies of Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani (1997–2005 and 2013-present, respectively), however, the IRI agenda has acknowledged the role of non-state actors and been more open to the multi-stakeholder framework of internet governance. The article concludes that the overemphasis on these three issues has led the IRI to ignore the complexity of the emerging regime of global internet governance and, consequently, to overlook prevalent issues such as transnational cybercrime.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cyber PolicySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207