MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225960907 · doi:10.1002/poi3.293

Lessons from France on the regulation of Internet pornography: How displacement effects, circumvention, and legislative scope may limit the efficacy of Article 23

2022· article· en· W4225960907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neil Thurman, Asmik Nalmpatian, Fabian Obster

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy & Internet · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislaturePornographyLegislationParliamentScope (computer science)Political scienceDemocracyThe InternetLawSociologyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2020, the French Parliament passed an amendment that put the country at the forefront of attempts by democratic states to restrict young people's access to legal online pornography. This study examines the necessity for and potential efficacy of the amendment, Article 23, through a comparative analysis of emerging legislative and regulatory approaches in France, the UK, Canada, Utah, and Germany, and through a survey of French 15‐, 16‐, and 17‐year‐olds. Among other things, our survey shows that 41% of 15‐, 16‐, and 17‐year‐olds in France visit dedicated pornographic sites, on average monthly and often much more frequently. However, the range of media platforms via which French adolescents are exposed to pornography, their knowledge about technologies that could circumvent age verification, and the power, scope, and implementation of Article 23 may limit the legislation's efficacy. Our findings suggest the mechanisms that may limit its efficacy include media displacement, socio‐technical circumvention, and the Article's relatively broad and imprecise nature. This study has implications for legislators and regulators in democratic countries beyond France as they too grapple with the challenges of regulating online pornography. Furthermore, it extends the often contradictory and/or limited evidence that exists about adolescents' consumption of pornography.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy & InternetSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207