MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2932748594

Drones recreativos, responsabilidad civil y protección de datos (Tras la reforma de 2017)

2019· article· es· W2932748594 on OpenAlex

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

VenueRevista de Derecho Civil · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, Ethics, and AI Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

espanolLos dos grandes retos que los drones recreativos plantean en la actualidad, como consecuencia de su reciente proliferacion entre los aficionados, son asegurar la seguridad del vuelo y prevenir vulneraciones de los derechos fundamentales. Tras el examen del Real Decreto 1036/2017 de 15 de diciembre –desde una perspectiva de derecho comparado con respecto a Canada y Estados Unidos de America– y sobre la base de un analisis de la responsabilidad civil del propietario y del fabricante por los danos causados, se concluye que el marco legal actual resulta insuficiente para evitar futuros incumplimientos de la normativa reguladora de la proteccion de datos. Es necesaria una mayor tarea de informacion entre los nuevos usuarios de esta tecnologia, asi como de una mayor implicacion del legislador y de los fabricantes.Los dos grandes retos que los drones recreativos plantean en la actualidad, como consecuencia de su reciente proliferacion entre los aficionados, son asegurar la seguridad del vuelo y prevenir vulneraciones de los derechos fundamentales. Tras el examen del Real Decreto 1036/2017 de 15 de diciembre –desde una perspectiva de derecho comparado con respecto a Canada y Estados Unidos de America– y sobre la base de un analisis de la responsabilidad civil del propietario y del fabricante por los danos causados, se concluye que el marco legal actual resulta insuficiente para evitar futuros incumplimientos de la normativa reguladora de la proteccion de datos. Es necesaria una mayor tarea de informacion entre los nuevos usuarios de esta tecnologia, asi como de una mayor implicacion del legislador y de los fabricantes. EnglishThe two great challenges raised by recreational drones presently, as a consequence of their recent proliferation among hobbyists, are ensuring flight safety and preventing violations of fundamental human rights. Following the review of the recently passed Royal Decree 1036/2017 of 15 December –from a comparative perspective with respect to Canada and United States of America– and on the basis of a thorough analysis of civil liability of the owner and the manufacturer for harm caused, it is concluded that the current legal framework is inadequate to avert violations of data protection regulation. A greater effort to provide information among the new users of this technology is required, as well as further involvement of the legislator and manufacturers.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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