MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989620921 · doi:10.1109/msp.2004.1276119

Technological protection measures in the courts

2004· article· en· W1989620921 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Signal Processing Magazine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Rights Management and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital Millennium Copyright ActValue (mathematics)Digital rights managementCopyright lawDigital eraComputer scienceComputer securityInternet privacyLaw and economicsLawIntellectual propertyPolitical scienceThe InternetSociologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is about the similarities and differences that exist between law and engineering. It is about the nature and value of interdisciplinary research and the importance this approach will have in dealing with the problems associated with media piracy and unauthorized use of digital information. The aim of this article is to explore legal reasoning as it applies to the technological protection measures (TPMs). It was done through consideration of the content scramble system (CSS) litigation in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.207 · 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