Security and privacy of adolescents in social applications and networks: legislative aspects and legal practice of countering cyberbullying on example of developed and developing countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to study the developed countries’ experience on the cyberbullying legal regulation among adolescents, to identify existing shortcomings in the developing countries’ laws and to develop recommendations for regulatory framework improvement. Design/methodology/approach The authors have studied the state regulatory practice of the UK, the USA, Canada, Malaysia, South Africa, Turkey, UAE and analyzed the statistics of 2018 on the cyberbullying manifestation among adolescents in these countries. Findings The study results can encourage countries to create separate cyberbullying legislation and periodically review and modify already existing legislation. Originality/value The study provides a list of the recommendations to regulate cybercrime in developing countries and prevent it as well. The results may contribute to creating laws related to the regulation of cyberbullying in countries where such legislation does not exist yet or existing regulatory legal acts do not bring the expected results, namely, in Post-Soviet countries and other developing countries of the world.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".