Bibliographic record
Abstract
On behalf of the Board of Editors for Volume 28 of the Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, I wish to extend thanks to our readers for their continued support, and to describe some of the many changes and new initiatives the Journal has undertaken this year. As our readers are aware, and our alumni are fond to tell, The Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal was launched by a group of dedicated students with the support and encouragement of Professor Kenneth Manaster, and began publishing articles in 1985. (2) For the Journal's 25th Anniversary, Professor Tyler Ochoa emphasized how the Journal had progressed its modest beginnings to its current position among the premiere law-and-technology and intellectual property journals in the United States because of the work of its (student) editors and staff throughout the years. (3) Volume 27 of the Journal was published as the Santa Clara University School of Law celebrated its 100th Anniversary. In the Preface to Volume 27, Dean Donald Polden described a role of the Journal as adding to the store of knowledge on law, society, and (4) He also commented that our annual symposium addresses a topic of significant national, and increasingly global, significance. (5) The Board of Editors for Volume 28 is excited to continue to strive for global impact, addressing issues at the nexus of technology, law, and policy. Contributors to Volume 28 include Giancarlo Frosio (from Italy), (6) Ron Bouchard (from Canada), (7) and Eldar Haber (from Israel). (8) This year's symposium, entitled International Intellectual Property--Is the IP World Flat?, addressed international perspectives on patent, trademark and privacy law and featured speakers from as far away as China. (9) The Board of Editors for Volume 28 is immensely proud to be able to contribute to the Journal's tradition, and is thankful for our special community of supporters, readers and alumni. One advantage of a student-run journal is that every year we get to harness the creativity and energy of a new group of dedicated students. (10) Thus, we have made changes with a nod to tradition but capitalizing on that enthusiasm. The most obvious change, of course, is the cover design. We chose the new color scheme to identify more closely with Santa Clara University School of Law as a whole. And yet we retain the open book logo introduced for the 20th Anniversary of the Journal. Over time, this will strengthen our brand and yet acknowledge our heritage, which is so important to us. Santa Clara Law has enabled another impending change: the Digital Commons webpages, which will increase our web presence, and hence visibility and search-ability of our articles. (11) Web presence helps with our ranking, which is based on citations to our articles. (12) Overall, we seek to develop a consistent look and feel to the Journal whether readers pick up the physical print copy or if they reach us through the website. Finally, the cover changes, and other subtle printing changes, have reduced production costs. We feel this is responsible stewardship of the Journal, since over time, demand for an online edition continues to increase even as demand for the traditional print version decreases. In addition, Volume 28 is working to develop a Kindle format for the Journal, and we hope to roll that out this year. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".