MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intermediary Responsibility

2015· other· en· W4245594046 on OpenAlexaff
Dwayne Winseck

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersBaiduTencent
KeywordsIntermediaryThe InternetPornographyInternet privacyBusinessInternet service providerService providerSocial mediaService (business)Blocking (statistics)AdvertisingPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawWorld Wide WebComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intermediaries operate the facilities that provide access to, or services on, the internet, including internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, social media, etc. As with all media, questions have arisen about what, if any, responsibilities, these entities should have with respect to third party content. While many observers in the 1990s saw the decentralized and cross‐border nature of the internet as making it difficult to regulate, concentration levels for core internet elements – ISPs, search engines, social media sites, etc. – are in fact very high. This, in turn, has made them popular tools as part of the struggle by governments, copyright interests, and others to regulate unwelcome content such as mass piracy, child pornography, whistle‐blowers, bullies, terrorists, etc. Consequently, intermediaries are being tasked – on a “voluntary” and mandatory basis – with a growing list of gatekeeper functions: website blocking and filtering, domain name seizures, data retention, etc.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1070.033

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and SocietySame topicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207