MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982211249 · doi:10.9785/ovs-cri-2011-65

Anti-Spam Legislation: A Comparative View

2011· article· en· W2982211249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Beardwood, Gabriel Stern

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Law Review International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationJurisdictionOrder (exchange)BusinessInternet privacyComputer securityLawPolitical scienceComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unsolicited electronic communication (i.e. “spam”) is a very real problem, causing harms which range from lost productivity to threats to the security of the receiving machine. This paper contrasts the anti-spam legislation in Canada to that in the United States, and in one representative European jurisdiction (i.e. the United Kingdom), in order to highlight the differences in approach regarding the types of email communications targeted by the legislation, the level of consent required from the receiver, and the type and severity of penalties levied.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Law Review InternationalSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207