La loi, la statue et l’artiste. L’apport du droit moral aux débats sur la commémoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary public sentiment and policy relating to the continued display of contested monuments has had a tendency to overlook (if not ignore) the rights of artists. This article reviews how the law, in particular, moral rights contained in the Copyright Act, protects artists and prevents statues and other public works of art from being “distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified.” For example, this provision—Paragraph 28.2(1)(a) of the Copyright Act—prevents certain types of changes from being made, including the repositioning or recontextualization of controversial monuments. Drawing from relevant case law and case studies of events that have been hotly debated in the media, we provide a summary of the applicable rules with the goal of integrating them into the ongoing discussion about commemoration. It is our hope that future decisions and public policies regarding contested monuments will be more conscious of the applicable legal framework and furthermore provide artists and their works the respect they deserve.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".