De sociale mediers brugervilkår del I - aftalen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Det Sociale Medium som f.eks. Twitter, Snapchat, Foursquare, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Tinder og Youtube har betinget sig en række standardvilkår som Brugeren, der måtte ønske at oprette en Profil, skal acceptere som led i oprettelsen. Ved at klikke på ”opret profil” eller en hermed tilsvarende formulering, accepterer Brugeren Det Sociale Mediums vilkår for brug af platformen, hvorfor der ifølge Det Sociale Medium er indgået en bindende Aftale med Brugeren. Det kan – i mangel af dansk administrativ praksis og dansk retspraksis – konkluderes, at en række hensyn, herunder parternes berettigede forventninger og den kontraktuelle balance taler for, at der er indgået en Aftale mellem Det Sociale Medium og Brugeren, mens der tilsvarende er en række hensyn, herunder selve aftaleprocessen og nogle vilkårs særlige karakter, der taler imod, at der er indgået en sådan Aftale. En afvejning af de modsatrettede hensyn kan på nuværende tidspunkt ikke føre til et entydigt resultat, om end vi på det foreliggende grundlag hælder mod, at Aftalen – hvis ikke i sin helhed så delvist – må formodes at være gyldig.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.047 |
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".