MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768363423 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v10n5p157

Protecting Related Creations to Fashion in the Framework of Literary and Artistic Property Rights of Iran and France

2017· article· en· W2768363423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sattar Zarkalam, Amin Rooholamini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyFolkloreJurisprudenceInterpretation (philosophy)LawProperty rightsBeautyIntangible propertyProperty lawProperty (philosophy)Law and economicsPolitical scienceSociologyAestheticsArtLiteraturePhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today’s world where the process of development and the industry is evolving more rapidly than expected, the legal notions are going forward on their compliance in line with these developments. The increasing development of intellectual property rights and their samples is an example of this change. One of the most important issues and instances of this tendency in legal rights is associated with fashion productions and creations. France, as one of the greatest leading country in fashion industry since long time ago, has legally protected the dress and beautiful creations in the intellectual property rules and in the different time periods, under the various titles, including the drawings and models rights, industrial property rights, literary and artistic property rights. French jurisprudence has broadly interpreted the concept of the fashion industry and consequently, the dress and beauty creations that have evolved not only the goods, but all parties involved in the production of the fashion industry. In Iranian law also, although there is no progress in this field compared to French law, with an optimistic interpretation of the rules of its intellectual property, it can be associated with Droit d'-auteur rules in addition to the industrial property rights under different titles such as design and drawings, Applied artwork, folklore etc.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207