MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improvising Age Verification Technologies in Canada: Technical, Regulatory and Social Dynamics

2023· article· en· W4396542930 on OpenAlexaffabout
Azfar Adib, Wei‐Ping Zhu, Muaz Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImprovisationDynamics (music)Computer scienceSociologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age verification, which is a mandatory legal requirement for delivering certain age-appropriate services or products, has recently been emphasized around the globe to ensure online safety for children. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has facilitated the recent development of some cutting-edge age-verification technologies, particularly using biometrics. However, successful deployment and mass acceptance of these technologies are significantly dependent on the corresponding socio-economic and regulatory context. This paper reviews such key dynamics for improvising age-verification technologies in Canada. It is particularly essential for such technologies to be inclusive, transparent, adaptable, privacy-preserving, and secure. Effective collaboration between academia, government, and industry entities can help to meet the growing demands for age-verification services in Canada while maintaining a user-centric approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207