Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Internet in Canada is an assemblage of private and public networks. A variety of institutions and networking codes manage these networks. Conflicts exist between these parties despite their interconnection. Tensions heightened when commercial ISPs began managing traffic on their network using sophisticated routing algorithms. Concerned parties demanded legislation based on a network neutrality principle to prevent undue discrimination. While the network neutrality controversy has been addressed as a question of public policy, the controversy also includes a conflict between various codes constituting networks in Canada. The conflict between codes involve two key networking software that manifest incongruous networks. Their algorithms, the logics embedded in code, differentiate the different types of networking code. The two types of algorithms are Quality of Service and End-to-End. These algorithms treat different modalities of Internet communication differently, in part due to their deployment by different institutions. Quality of Service allows for the tiering of traffic by carriers. Commercial carriers have popularized this algorithm to promote value-added services and prevent network congestions. End-to-end algorithms, on the other hand, enforce a strict equality between modalities of communication. Peer-to-peer applications have popularized an extreme version of the end-to-algorithm, treating all nodes as equals. The popularity and growth of both these algorithms pulls the Internet in different directions, creating conflicts over its future. Through an extended review of these two algorithms and their intersection, this paper confronts how code plays a role in the network neutrality controversy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".