Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est difficile de définir le droit de propriété. Quelle que soit la façon dont on l’aborde, le discours juridique se perd dans la recherche de sa justification, de son origine ou encore dans l’examen de sa nature. Il s’épuise dans la philosophie, dans les sciences économiques et dans le langage. Au point, d’ailleurs, où l’on pourrait se demander si la propriété n’est pas un acte de foi, une idée à laquelle nous croyons sans éprouver la nécessité de vérifier la véracité de tous ses éléments constitutifs. Si l’on s’en tient au langage de la propriété, on s’apercevra qu’elle est modelée par les métaphores. Ces métaphores, celle de la propriété absolue, par exemple, ou celle de la propriété naturelle encore, constituent autant de fausses représentations sur lesquelles le droit s’est construit. La manipulation du sens du mot « propriété » à laquelle cette imagerie du droit participe est particulièrement saillante dans la formation des droits de propriété intellectuelle.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".