A Delicate Balance: Defining the Line Between Open Civil Proceedings and the Protection of Children in the Online Digital Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
He thought of the telescreen with its never-sleeping ear. They could spy upon you night and day, but if you kept your head you could still outwit them. [. . .] They could lay bare in the utmost detail everything that you had done or said or thought; but the inner heart, whose workings were mysterious even to yourself, remained impregnable.\n— George Orwell, 1984\nOn Thursday September 27, 2012, a few months after our paper was written, the Supreme Court of Canada solidified the rights of children victimized by cyberbullying in the landmark decision of AB (Litigation Guardian of) v Bragg Communications Inc. The unanimous decision overturned the holding of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in part. The justices agreed with the contention that objectively discernible harm would result to the15-year-old female plaintiff who was victimized by online sexualized bullying, if she was forced to proceed in a legal action against her cyber-perpetrators under her real name. Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Abella held that, “. . .common sense and the evidence show that young victims of sexualized bullying are particularly vulnerable to the harms of revictimization upon publication, and since the right to protection will disappear for most children without the further protection of anonymity, the girl’s anonymous legal pursuit of the identity of her cyberbully should be allowed.” Justice Abella argued, in other words, that while the open court principle mandates that court proceedings presumptively remain open and accessible to the media and the public, there were sufficiently compelling interests in this case, namely, the protection of children and their privacy, to warrant restrictions on freedom of the press and openness. The Supreme Court did not grant, however, the child-plaintiff’s request for a publication ban of the allegedly defamatory material contained in a fake Facebook profile in her name. Instead, the court held that such a confidentiality order would be excessive, given that her name could no longer be connected to the information.
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 | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.115 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".