MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365812731 · doi:10.1163/17087384-bja10077

Envisioning the Effective Implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty For Blind, Visually Impaired and Print-Disabled Individuals in Mauritius

2023· article· en· W4365812731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Neel Raamandarsingh Purmah

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyPolitical scienceState (computer science)Human rightsLawLaw and economicsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Marrakesh Treaty has been hailed as the key to unlocking the door for visually impaired or print-disabled individuals to have more equitable access to published works. Its most innovative aspect resides in its provision of mandatory copyright exceptions with a view of facilitating the cross-border exchange of published works in accessible format for individuals with print disabilities. This could have far-reaching benefits in terms of closing the gap on the book famine for visually impaired persons worldwide, in particular in developing nations such as the Republic of Mauritius. While Mauritius has ratified the Marrakesh Treaty on 11 January 2021, it has only entered into force on 11 April 2021. It is therefore well-timed to examine to what extent can the Marrakesh Treaty be effectively implemented for print-disabled individuals in Mauritius to enjoy their rights to access information and to participation in cultural life on an equal basis with others. First, the paper will provide a contextual exploration of the rationale behind the development and adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty, and then turn to a legal and policy analysis of the substantive provisions of the treaty. Second, the paper will elaborate on a human rights framework for copyright. Finally, the paper will provide significant legal and policy recommendations for both state and non-state actors to fully and meaningfully give effect to the treaty, including through the development of a clear action plan, and the role of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in facilitating access to published works for print-disabled individuals in Mauritius.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0110.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicLegal and Policy IssuesFrench-language works237,207