Virtual Reality: General Issues of Legal Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article focuses on the general issues of legal regulation of relations that emerge in the field of application of VR technologies and presents issues associated with the regulation of development of such technologies. It looks at the features of this technology that create challenges for the development of a system of legal regulation of its application. The article also gives a perspective at major factors that make application of the existing law difficult and offers analysis of the emerging issues of its regulation. The author arrives at a conclusion that this technology is fundamentally different from the other existing technologies as it combines the properties of both physical reality and cyberspace. Among the challenges of the legal regulation of VR are a high realism, complete immersion user experience, and low cyber protection of both hardware and software components. The author evaluates several regulatory approaches, which could be used in the case of virtual reality and finds that all of them have major deficiencies. Contemporary research findings in secure application of VR in the fields of teaching and entertainment get rapidly outdated as they cannot catch up with the technology development, therefore they can only serve as a ground for the development of a system of VR regulation with consideration of this factor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".