Harmonisation of Municipal Laws for Protection of Expressions of Folklore in the East African Community: The Case study of Rwanda and Tanzania.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is internationally recognised that expressions of folklore are valuable assets. They are rooted from various communities. They pass from one generation to another. However, due to advancement of technology, such assets have been misappropriated within the East African Community and at global level. This prompted international and the East African Community efforts to design mechanisms including harmonisation of laws for adequate protection of expressions of folklore. Despite such efforts, there are disparities in protecting expressions of folklore in the municipal laws of the East African Community Member States. Rwanda and Tanzania were selected as a case study. Therefore, this study was conducted to address two questions: one, to what extent has Rwanda and Tanzania harmonised their municipal laws for protecting and promoting expressions of folklore within the East African Community. Two, what are the appropriate mechanisms for adequately protecting and promoting expressions of folklore in Rwanda and Tanzania? The study relied upon doctrinal legal research complemented by comparative legal research. From gathered and analysed information, it was found that municipal laws on protection of expressions of folklore within the East African Community were not harmonised. It was also found that positive, defensive and sui generis approaches are appropriate mechanisms for adequately protecting expressions of folklore in Rwanda and Tanzania. Finally, instead of protecting expressions of folklore under the copyright law, the study recommends each East African Community MemberState to have a specific law for protecting the expressions of folklore. The studyrecommends that like other communities, for instance the Pacific Community, the East African Community need to adopt a sui generis comprehensive legal framework forprotecting expressions of folklore within the Community. \nKeywords: Harmonisation, Municipal Laws, Expressions of Folklore, East African Communit
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".