MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769748671

Plagiatul Și Încălcarea Drepturilor De Autor. Studiu Comparat De Jurisprudență (Plagiarism and Infringement of Author's Rights. Comparative Study of Jurisprudence)

2017· article· ro· W2769748671 on OpenAlex
Sonia Florea

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

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languagero
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Rights and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudencePolitical scienceRomanianHumanitiesEconomic JusticeLawPhilosophyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.326 · 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