Bibliographic record
Abstract
Namen prispevka: Namen prispevka je opredelitev problematike ponarejanja na eni strani in odnos ljudi do nakupa blagovnih znamk visjega cenovnega razreda na drugi. Prispevek naj bi v bralcu vzbudil zanimanje za izvor izdelkov, ki jih ponujajo na trgu, prav tako naj bi ga tema pritegnila k razmisljanju in razumevanju problematike ponarejanja. Metode: Avtorja v delu uporabita deskriptivno metodo. V tem okviru na podlagi izbrane domace in tuje literature uporabita se metodo analize in interpretacije vsebine pisnih in internetnih virov. Drugi del prispevka je namenjen empiricni metodi. Z uporabo kvantitativne tehnike analizirata stanje in odnos ljudi do ponaredkov v Sloveniji. V ta namen uporabita spletno anketo, sestavljeno iz vprasanj zaprtega tipa. Nadaljujeta z nestandardiziranim intervjujem predstavnika vodilne slovenske oblacilne verige. Pridobljene podatke obdelata kvantitativno in kvalitativno. Ugotovitve: Vecina ponarejenih izdelkov prihaja iz Kitajske (Shanghai – Science and Technology Museum oziroma Underground Market, Tao Bao City, Qipo Road Market; Guangzhou), Italije (Neapelj), Turcije (Carigrad) in obmocja bivse Jugoslavije (Novi Pazar). Dokazovanje, da gre za ponaredek na trgu, je najpogosteje prepusceno kar imetniku zascitene blagovne znamke. Ker tržni inspektorat ni ustrezno usposobljen za dokazovanje, da gre za ponaredek, mora dokaze o tem predložiti imetnik zascitene blagovne znamke. Krsitve intelektualne lastnine so opredeljene kot kaznivo dejanje, kadar gre za naklepno dejanje, storjeno v komercialno korist. Omejitve/uporabnost raziskave Zaradi nacina zbiranja podatkov in vzorca raziskava odraža znacilnosti potrosnikov in njihov odnos do te problematike. Prakticna uporabnost: Izsledki clanka nam dajejo osnovo za nadaljnje raziskovanje problematike ponarejanja, hkrati pa nakazujejo na možne resitve obravnavanega problema na regionalni, nacionalni in globalni ravni. Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka: Prispevek analizira mnenje o odnosu do nakupa ponaredkov blagovnih znamk visjega cenovnega razreda in pogled pooblascenih ponudnikov izdelkov blagovnih znamk na problematiko ponarejanja v Sloveniji. Avtorja ugotovitve aplicirata na slovenski trg ter predlagata resitve na represivnem in preventivnem podrocju.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".