MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408590450 · doi:10.14324/111.2052-1871.061

IT’S A HARD KNOCK LIFE: A CRITIQUE OF THE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE ORPHAN WORKS PROBLEM IN THE UK

2016· article· en· W2408590450 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Jurisprudence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislaturePolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article serves to identify the flaws in the three-pronged solution to the orphan works problem implemented in the UK. It concurrently questions the compatibility of the UK’s approach with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation; namely to ensure legal certainty with respect to the use of orphan works, to facilitate cross-border access to orphan works, to facilitate mass digitisation projects and to ensure that authors’ moral rights remain respected and protected. In addressing these issues, the article seeks to highlight aspects of the UK solution which could be amended in order to ensure that copyright law remains relevant and workable in the digital age, whilst maintaining a fair balance between protecting the interests of right holders and the public.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and JurisprudenceSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207