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
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it