MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

«HATE SPEECH» IN INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGAL CONTEXT

2017· article· en· W2957349348 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyFreedom of expressionLawContext (archaeology)Political scienceExpression (computer science)Term (time)Foundation (evidence)Fundamental rightsHuman rightsFreedom of thoughtInternational lawLaw and economicsSociologyPoliticsComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is proved that the term hate speech used in international legal discourse does not have a generalized and precise definition. It is noted that when using the term «hate speech» there is a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the prohibition of discrimination on any grounds. It is emphasized that the concept of «hate speech» in its current use contradicts the fundamental principle of the rule of law, because it represents a threat to the democratic foundation of society. The unconditional introduction of the concept of «hate speech» into the laws of European states may endanger the right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, as it provides grounds for establishing unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of these rights and freedoms.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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