MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2392855591

Comparative Study on the Evidence Utilization in the Network Right Infrigement Case

2008· article· en· W2392855591 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Henan Institute of Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Rights Management and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Process (computing)Dual (grammatical number)BusinessLawLaw and economicsComputer scienceEconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared with the evidence utilization of the traditional right infringement cases,the network right infringement case is still a brand-new question.Because of the present legal evidence’s limit to evidence utilizations,the network right infringement faced with many practical difficulties,such as,how determine the acceptance standard of the network evidence and the scope of writes out,and so on.In the situation that there are no unified network evidence laws and regulations at present in our country and judges of related legislations in the western developed countries,such as US,Canada,in view of evidence utilization’s actual situation in our country network right infringement case,using legal and the technical dual method to the difficult problems in the process of the network acceptance and writes out,should be choice.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.193 · 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