Is it Possible to Regulate the Internet Globally?: a Comparative Case Study of the Cybercrime Framework in Canada and Romania.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, I investigate the concept of Internet regulation and its implementation by examining the Convention on Cybercrime, which regulates the European Union (EU) and non EU countries. I examine the approaches taken toward the Convention on Cybercrime in two different socio-economic and political systems: Canada, a modern democracy that only signed the Convention, and Romania, an ex-communist democracy that both signed and ratified it. With this Convention, the Council of Europe has claimed that one model of global Internet regulation is appropriate for all countries. I argue that the infrastructure and legal, economic, and socio-cultural aspects of local cultures make the global homogenous regulation of the Internet impractical, therefore regulation on a national level would be more effective. I also try to contribute to current research by studying the complexity of the global regulation of Internet crimes by demonstrating: the importance of democracy and technology for public policy frameworks for cybercrime, by describing; the limitations of the model represented by the global monolithic Convention on Cybercrime, and by suggesting that a universal democratic model of global Internet regulation is utopian and does not address the individual needs of each country.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".