Plagiatul Și Încălcarea Drepturilor De Autor. Studiu Comparat De Jurisprudență (Plagiarism and Infringement of Author's Rights. Comparative Study of Jurisprudence)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Romanian Abstract: Care sunt condițiile prevazute de lege pentru sancționarea faptelor de plagiat și autoplagiat? Este plagiatul reglementat și sancționat ca fapta de incalcare a dreptului de autor? Este necesar, pentru sancționarea plagiatului, ca opera din care s-a plagiat sa fie o opera originala, protejata prin drept de autor? Criteriul ‘‘originalitații’’ este aplicabil ideilor? Sunt intrebari la care iși propune sa raspunda studiul de fața, prin examinarea jurisprudenței relevante, pronunțata de Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție și de instanțe judecatorești din Franța și provincia canadiana Quebec. Studiul este organizat in doua parți principale, urmate de scurte concluzii. Prima parte cuprinde considerații esențiale privitoare la reglementarea și sancționarea faptei de plagiat și autoplagiat conform legislației române in vigoare. In a doua parte a studiului sunt analizate hotari judecatorești relevante. English Abstract: What are the legal criteria for qualifying and sanctioning plagiarism and self-plagiarism? Is plagiarism regulated and sanctioned as an infringement of author’s rights? Is it necessary, for finding plagiarism, that the plagiarised work is an original work, protected by author’s rights? Is ‘‘originality’’ a criteria applicable to ideas expressed in a work? This are some of the questions the Study answers by analysing the relevant jurisprudence of the Romanian High Court of Justice, of French and Quebec Tribunals. The Study comprises two main parts, followed by short conclusions. The first part analysis the current Romanian legislation regulating plagiarism and self-plagiarism. In the second part, relevant court decisions are critically examined.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".