Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Telecommunications technology has dramatically transformed an individual's ability to access information. Internet surfers are often unaware of the ways in which their Internet services are being managed, and even fewer are familiar with the term Internet neutrality. As a growing trend, more Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Canada are intervening with the infrastructure of the Internet by utilizing traffic management practices, such as bandwidth 'throttling'1, which hinder a user's ability to quickly access certain types of content online. Internet traffic management practices (ITMP) are a means for ISPs to control their 'congested'2 networks, with the aim of optimizing or improving their network's performance, or they can often aid in increasing usable bandwidth (Lithgow, 2011). Traffic management practices ultimately allow one kind of 'packet'3 to be delayed over another; for example, ISPs often use a program called Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), which is a program that can identify forms of traffic online, meaning it can target specific applications. Since ITMPs can target specific 'packets' online, smaller interest groups, and businesses became increasingly concerned that network neutrality policy principles, such as 'common-carriage'4 was not being enforced by the CRTC. This paper will identify the main concerns of utilizing ITMP on broadband networks, and will illustrate that ITMP can and should be connected to the discussion regarding network neutrality in Canada" -- From the introduction, page 1.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".