New domain '.sucks' to be investigated by feds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Listen to the story on Rivet You may not have a personal relationship with ICANN, but if are on line at all, you deal with the group. It's the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. They have the say-so as to what internet address you can have. And they're charged with keeping inappropriate words being used. And they are now in hot discussions over the decision on whether or not to allow one. A Canadian company has decided it will offer for sale dot sucks. And the people running the comapany are starting with celebrities and other famous people. Because no star would like to have an email with their name followed by sucks. And the same thing goes for companies tht make consumer products. ICANN has asked the US federal trade commission and Canada's office of consumer affairs to see if the actons of Vox Populi are illegal...a kind of blackmail. Originally ICANN had approved the so-called top level domain name...but is backtracking after comanies like Microsoft, Verizon and eBay sent them a \What the heck are you guys doing?\ letter last month.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.032 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".