Law Commission of Ontario to host one-day conference on May 3 examining “Defamation Law in the Internet Age: Where Do We Go From Here?” Registration is now open
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been said that almost every concept and rule in the field of defamation law has to be reconsidered in light of the Internet. The Law Commission of Ontario’s “Defamation Law and the Internet: Where Do We Go From Here?” conference, held on May 3, 2018, considered whether or how defamation law should be reformed in light of fast-moving and far-reaching developments in law, technology and social values.\nTopics discussed included defamation, online speech and reputation, the relationship between freedom of expression and privacy, whether or how internet intermediaries (such as Facebook or Google) should be responsible for online defamation, internet “content moderation”, dispute resolution, and access to justice.\nThe conference was incredibly successful, with over 140 participants in person and on the live webcast, contributing to the discussion.\nWe invite you to continue the dialogue on the issues raised at the conference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".