MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413709148 · doi:10.62938/rdc-2025-1-0010

Constitutional freedoms in the digital age: a review of Marcin Wielec’s volume on the freedom of expression and pluralism

2025· review· en· W4413709148 on OpenAlexfundno aff
CLAUDIA STANCIU

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de drept constituţional · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w WarszawieÉcole nationale d'administration publique
KeywordsFreedom of expressionPluralism (philosophy)Political scienceExpression (computer science)Law and economicsSociologyPhilosophyEpistemologyLawComputer scienceHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media are an important part of our everyday life.They emerged as a contemporary response of the digital world to the primordial human need, which is the need for social contact, as well as the need to connect into social groups". I. From Connection to Regulation: Setting the StageMarcin Wielec 1 opens the volume with a powerful insight: social media are not just tools but extensions of our human need for connection and community.This insight frames the broader inquiry of the book -an inquiry into how these platforms, born of a basic social instinct, now profoundly shape constitutional values like freedom of expression and democratic pluralism.The volume The Impact of Digital Platforms and Social Media on the Freedom of Expression and Pluralism, edited by Marcin Wielec and published in 2021 by the Ferenc Mdl Institute of Comparative Law and Central European Academic Publishing, addresses one of the most pressing constitutional challenges of our era: the balance between freedom of expression and the regulation of digital communication spaces.Bringing together contributions from renowned legal scholars across Central Europe, the book offers a timely and thorough examination of how digital platforms and social media have reshaped the legal landscape of free speech and pluralism in democratic societies.With a particular focus on the experiences of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Slovakia, the volume provides both theoretical analysis and national case studies, highlighting common trends as well as jurisdiction-specific issues.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de drept constituţionalSame topicFreedom of Expression and DefamationFrench-language works237,207