MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391985075 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.2088

Role Of Intellectual Property Laws For Protection Of Computer Software With Special Reference To Copy Right & Patent

2023· article· en· W4391985075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pradip Kumar Kashyap, Bhriguraj Mourya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertySoftwareProperty (philosophy)Patent lawLawBusinessComputer softwareLaw and economicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceSoftware engineeringSociologyProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intellectual property, sometimes known as IP, refers to a piece of work that differs from a physical thing. Intellectual property (IP) is often the result of creative endeavors and may take the shape of a song, a formula, a song, or software. Copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents are all legal protections for intellectual property (IP). Individuals, new enterprises, and established companies all stand to benefit from innovations in software. When it comes to protecting content like software, the law is the most effective method. Programmers and corporations consider software as intellectual property in order to take advantage of the legal protections available to them. When it comes to protecting intellectual property (IP) related to software, a copyright and a patent both provide legal protection. Different aspects of intellectual property protection are covered by each of the available options. There are some who favor either one or the other, while others want to have both. Alternately, you have the option of treating your program as a confidential business information. Making a decision on what to do is a crucial stage in the process of securing your software. Your intellectual property software code may also be protected by trademarks, which are another alternative. Something that they safeguard is either the name of the product or a symbol that you use in order to promote the software. It is a good idea to trademark the brand name of your software in order to prevent other companies from selling a product with a name that is confusingly similar to yours.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.019
Scholarly communication0.0220.019
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0230.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.020

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.009 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicLaw, AI, and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207