Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tematem teto prace je rozbor aktualni soudni judikatury ve sporech na ochranu osobnosti. Autor, soudce specializovaný na tuto problematiku, k problematice přistupuje kombinaci systematicke a analyticke metody a rovněž kazuisticky ilustruje teoreticke otazky na praktických připadech. Řadu sporů na ochranu osobnosti lze bez jakekoli nadsazky oznacit za hard cases. Těmi se rozumi připady, k jejichž řeseni buď schazi normativni uprava nebo ohledně nichž na zakladě existujici upravy korektni, tj. v pravnim mysleni obvyklou aplikaci standardnich interpretacnich postupů, lze dospět k diametralně odlisným řesenim. V teto praci je kladen obzvlastni důraz na souvisejici judikaturu. V některých pasažich přihliži prace take ke koncepci navrhu noveho obcanskeho zakoniku, k vrcholnemu dilu evropske deliktni doktriny - Principles of European Tort Law a k Civil Code of Quebec. Prace se postupně zabýva problematikou pramenů prava na ochranu osobnosti, pojmem tohoto prava, aktivni a pasivni legitimaci při ochraně osobnosti a pravnimi prostředky ochrany osobnosti.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".