Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstraction-filtration-comparison test see software Australia factual compilations 94-5 skill and labor standard of originality 94-5 Austria personal intellectual creation standard of originality 82 authorship 'author' (meaning) and originality 142-3, 145, 238 facts and fact-based works and 57-8 'creation' v. 'discovery' of facts by author 135-6, 142, 145, 152-4, 158, 175, 179, 195, 207, 238 see also facts indeterminate works see indeterminate works intellectual invention as a basis of 143 labor as a basis of 8-9, 15, intellectual labor as a basis of 41-2, 49, 60, 72-3, 181 see also news see also industrious collection doctrine lack of creativity requirement 238 see also 'lack of creativity requirement' under 'originality' personality or individuality as a basis of 8, 10, 79, 83-4, 93, 146, 181 see also originality subjectivity 8 see also originality Belgium author personality test for originality 79-80 Canada development as a middle standard 88-91, 93, 100, 102, 104-5 non-mechanical and non-trivial exercise of skill and judgment standard of originality 88-92, 102-4 codes of law see 'lack of copyrightability' under 'facts'; copyrightability collective fact approach see compilations common law copyright protection news and see news compilations factual 3, 29, 31, 71-2, 93, 145-6, 282 protection for collective fact approach 110-11, 115-16, 126-32 collective facts as content and protectable expression 126-32, 187, 239 collective facts as 'original' 121-5, 154, 326-7 copyright protection of fictional works in comparison with 111, 113, 116, 121, 126, 130, 132 creative spark standard see creativity distinguishable variation standard see creativity parallel independent creation 122-4, 126, 128 fallacies 109-11, 125-6, 132 Feist approach as incoherent with regards to lack of creativity for copyrightability of selection and arrangement of compilations 111, 115-21, 132 arrangement 119-21, 322 selection 115-18, 322 Index
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.813 | 0.692 |
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".