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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0340.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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