Where Do We Go from Here? Reflections on the LCO’s Consultation and Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a report on the Law Commission of Ontario’s one-day conference on defamation law and the Internet by the conference rapporteur. After reviewing the topical nature of the event (including its relationship with debate on defamation law in Ontario and elsewhere), this article discusses the position of defamation in a wider legal landscape. Points include the relationship between defamation and privacy, the impact of data protection, and the appropriateness of procedures. Then, the impact of technological change is assessed, referring to the liability of intermediaries, the enforcement of decisions, and the degree to which online communication can support a diverse range of voices and perspectives. Concluding remarks encompass the significance of human rights law, the reconsideration of conceptual and doctrinal frames for defamation, and the use of new technologies to address issues of reputation and responsibility.
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 | 0.026 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".