MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280548821 · doi:10.1163/17087384-bja10066

‘Not Water or Air’: The Legality of Network Disruptions in Ethiopia

2022· article· en· W4280548821 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kinfe Yilma

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityDisinformationCybercrimeLegislationGovernment (linguistics)LawPolitical scienceComputer securityThe InternetBusinessSocial mediaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Network disruption has become commonplace in Ethiopia in the past few years. Be it for preventing exam leaks, the spread of disinformation, or to fight off cyber-attacks, the government has repeatedly disrupted communication networks. However, the legal basis with which the government often shuts down the Internet or disrupts other means of digital communications remains unclear. Despite a recent attempt by the Federal Attorney General to offer some legal justification, the legality of network disruptions under Ethiopia law is questionable. This short article considers the legality of network disruptions under Ethiopian law. Having rejected the legal justifications of the Attorney General, this article argues that the current cybercrime legislation offers a rather sound legal basis for certain forms of network disruption in Ethiopia. It further considers the pertinence of rules dealing with network disruption introduced in the cybercrime Bill (2020). The article suggests that the Bill’s network disruption rules are mostly progressive, but there remains the need for a freestanding legal framework equipped with appropriate safeguards against arbitrary practices.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207