MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055108802

Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation: A Constitutional Analysis, 31 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 1 (2014)

2014· article· en· W7055108802 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueUIC Law Open Access Repository (University of Illinois at Chicago) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)LegislationScrutinyThe InternetFreedom of informationFreedom of expressionConstitutional lawConstitution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On December 15th, 2010, the Government of Canada agreed to Bill C-28, the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, with the intent to “deter the most damaging and deceptive forms of spam… from occurring in Canada and to help to drive out spammers.” Canada‟s Anti- Spam Legislation (“CASL”) was born. Although CASL has only been in force since July 1st, 2014, we argue that the Act may not survive constitutional scrutiny as it unduly restricts freedom of speech.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUIC Law Open Access Repository (University of Illinois at Chicago)Same topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207