Interpretation & The Internet, 28 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 251 (2010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years after the advent of the Internet, the revolutionary nature of the technology can no longer be in doubt. In spite of the ‘differentness” of the Internet, courts have proven adept at adapting extant law to the features and demands of this new technology. This paper will chronicle the differences between the Internet and other technologies which might, depending on the legal issue, justify the exclusion of the Internet from established rules on the basis of analogical reasoning. Two approaches to legal interpretation – literalism and purposivism—will be discussed in light of this new technology, with an explanation as to why a purposive approach to legal interpretation is the best guard against inappropriate application of a rule to new technology. Finally, a new methodology to provide courts with a template for how to approach interpretation of the law and the Internet will be discussed. This methodology will then be illustrated within the context of SOCAN v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".