Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the massive ecosystem of internet governance, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles at the Internet Governance Forum has claimed that one way to integrate human rights and internet policy making is to ‘translate existing human rights to the internet environment to build awareness, understanding and a shared platform for mobilization around rights and principles for the internet’. This paper examines the metaphor of translation as an approach to understand human rights in the digital age, and the role of civil society as ‘translator’ to participate in global internet governance. The paper argues that translation is a unique way to conceive human rights in the digital age and, more broadly, the relation between law and technology. By referring to theories of translation studies, I aim to demonstrate the conflicted consequences of resorting to translation, and the need for accountability of the translator.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".