MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128584865 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v13n4p117

Impact of Digital Economy on Intellectual Property Law

2020· article· en· W3128584865 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asif Khan, Ximei Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyDigital economyLegislationContext (archaeology)BusinessLaw and economicsLawPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intellectual property is regarded to be the digital economy's hot issue. It ranges from theoretical arguments to own information concerning everyday life relating to the foundation of internet geography. The current study deals with the impact of the digital economy on intellectual property law and proposes that although various countries have given many intellectual property laws, no such implementation has ever been made. Still, the digital world has witnessed the protection of intellectual law through technical protection and contracts. The digital economy has greatly impacted the intellectual property law that can be witnessed through cyber squatter legislation and significant legal and economic protection developments. The endorsement of business methods patents and e-commerce would significantly affect freedom, computer as well as privacy. However, some of their personal information has been suggested by giving individual property rights while describing it to protect freedom and privacy. In this study, it has also been concluded that policy is critical to conceive and analyze issues so that it would be technology independent. It would help policymakers to draft legislation and policies in the same way. In addition to this, policymakers' decisions should not base on any business model's specifics only. Moreover, the study suggests the need for other adaptations to ensure that all the essential purposes in copyright laws, such as giving free access to the public for a broader range of information, have been adequately fulfilled in the digital economy context. However, such adaptations are yet to design, and for completing such tasks, the stakeholders' participation is significant.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207