Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est difficile de definir le droit de propriete. Quelle que soit la facon 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’epuise dans la philosophie, dans les sciences economiques et dans le langage. Au point, d’ailleurs, ou l’on pourrait se demander si la n’est pas un acte de foi, une idee a laquelle nous croyons sans eprouver la necessite de verifier la veracite de tous ses elements constitutifs. Si l’on s’en tient au langage de la propriete, on s’apercevra qu’elle est modelee par les metaphores. Ces metaphores, celle de la absolue, par exemple, ou celle de la naturelle encore, constituent autant de fausses representations sur lesquelles le droit s’est construit. La manipulation du sens du mot propriete a laquelle cette imagerie du droit participe est particulierement saillante dans la formation des droits de intellectuelle. What is property? Which ever way one approaches the subject, the judicial discourse is lost within the search of its justification, its origin, or even within the analysis of its very nature. It loses itself in other social sciences, such as philosophy, economics and linguistics - to the point, for that matter, where one might ask oneself if it is not simply an act of faith, that is, an idea in which one believes without feeling the necessity the examine the truth of all of its constitutive elements. If we adhere to the language of we can see that it is modeled by metaphors. Such metaphors, that of absolute for example, or even that of natural constitute as many false representations as those upon which the law has been built. The manipulation of the word property, in which this imagery of law takes part, is striking in the development of intellectual property rights.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".