¿De qué hablan los medios cuando hablan de propiedad intelectual? Un análisis comprada de contenido en la prensa de calidad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo trata de explicar cuáles son los principales aspectos y derechos, morales, de explotación económica o conexos, tratados por los principales medios de comunicación de calidad de una muestra representativa de las dos principales tradiciones jurídicas, el common law (y el sistema de copyright) y el civil law (y el sistema de derechos de autor). Se produce un análisis de contenido sobre informaciones publicadas por dichos medios, los principales de los Estados Unidos (The New York Times, The Washington Post), Canadá (The Globe and Mail, La Presse), Francia (Le Monde, Le Figaro), España (El País, El Mundo), Italia (La Repubblica, Corriere della Sera) y el Reino Unido (The Guardian, The Times) en los primeros meses de 2014, cuando, por cierto, se produjeron numerosas reformas en materia de propiedad intelectual, tanto en el área nacional como por parte de instituciones supranacionales (Unión Europea, WIPO-OMPI).
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".