MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288751138

Perez v Fernandez: Australia's First Decision on the Moral Right of Integrity

2013· article· en· W2288751138 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jani McCutcheon

Bibliographic record

VenueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudencePolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the recent Federal Magistrates Court decision of Perez v Fernandez, Australia's first case on the moral right of integrity.While not an in-depth consideration of the moral right of integrity, Perez gives some useful insights and raises some questions.This article will closely analyse and critique the decision, compare it to approaches to the moral right of integrity in the UK and Canada, and identify the useful contributions Perez makes to the fledgling Australian moral rights jurisprudence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0140.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia)Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207