Search (32 results, page 2 of 2)

0.010317104 = product of:
  0.030951312 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=1644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
    0.026489196 = weight(_text_:und in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026489196 = score(doc=1644,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

"Die Titelzeile stimmt nicht ganz, aber fast: Eine künstliche Intelligenz ist diesmal nicht gegen Schach- oder Go-Spieler angetreten. Sondern gegen ausgefuchste Profi-Anwälte. Ausgedacht hatte sich diesen Contest ein US-Unternehmen namens LawGeex (lawgeex.com). Das wurde 2014 von einem Anwalt und einem KI-Spezialisten gegründet. Das Produkt: eine KI-Software, die sich komplizierte Verträge ansieht und Fehler wie Fallen identifiziert.Die KI wurde wie üblich erstmal gründlich auf Vertragsrecht trainiert. Dafür durfte sie Tausende von Verträgen samt Tricks und Finten durchsehen. Jetzt kam es zum Show-down: die KI gegen 20 Spezialisten. Die Aufgabe: fünf komplizierte Verträge mit zusammen über 3.000 Klauseln mussten auf "Sauberkeit" geprüft werden. Die Zeit: maximal vier Stunden. Das Ergebnis? Die Anwälte schafften eine mittlere Genauigkeit von immerhin 85 Prozent in 92 Minuten. LawGeexgelangen 94 Prozent. Nicht schlecht. Und deprimierend, wenn man bedenkt, dass die Software dafür gerade mal 26 Sekunden brauchte. Das ist rund 180 Mal schneller. Wäre ich Fachanwalt, würde ich mir das Programm sofort kaufen. Ich muss ja meinen Klienten nicht erzählen, dass ich einen so flotten Assistenten habe, der allzeit zu niedrigen Kosten einsatzbereit ist und dem ich am Ende nur über die Schulter schauen muss. Ich würde mich mehr um Scheidungsfälle kümmern. Dadürften Klsnoch kläglich versagen."

0.008910278 = product of:
  0.026730832 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=2923,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
    0.01675324 = weight(_text_:und in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01675324 = score(doc=2923,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17315367 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

" Im Streit mit Google um Urheberrechte ist eine Gruppe von Buchautoren am Obersten US-Gericht gescheitert. Der Supreme Court lehnte es ab, die google-freundliche Entscheidung eines niederen Gerichtes zur Revision zuzulassen. In dem Fall geht es um die Online-Bibliothek "Google Books", für die der kalifornische Konzern Gerichtsunterlagen zufolge mehr als 20 Millionen Bücher digitalisiert hat. Durch das Projekt können Internet-Nutzer innerhalb der Bücher nach Stichworten suchen und die entsprechenden Textstellen lesen. Die drei zuständigen Richter entschieden einstimmig, dass in dem Fall zwar die Grenzen der Fairness ausgetestet würden, aber das Vorgehen von Google letztlich rechtens sei. Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe gefürchtet Die von dem Interessensverband Authors Guild angeführten Kläger sahen ihre Urheberrechte durch "Google Books" verletzt. Dazu gehörten auch prominente Künstler wie die Schriftstellerin und Dichterin Margaret Atwood. Google führte dagegen an, die Internet-Bibliothek kurbele den Bücherverkauf an, weil Leser dadurch zusätzlich auf interessante Werke aufmerksam gemacht würden. Google reagierte "dankbar" auf die Entscheidung des Supreme Court. Der Konzern hatte befürchtet, bei einer juristischen Niederlage Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe zahlen zu müssen."

0.006701296 = product of:
  0.040207777 = sum of:
    0.040207777 = weight(_text_:und in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040207777 = score(doc=3253,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Wissenschaftliches Publizieren: zwischen Digitalisierung, Leistungsmessung, Ökonomisierung und medialer Beobachtung. Hrsg.: Peter Weingart u. Niels Taubert

0.005528287 = product of:
  0.03316972 = sum of:
    0.03316972 = weight(_text_:und in 3446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03316972 = score(doc=3446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3446)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0054715853 = product of:
  0.032829512 = sum of:
    0.032829512 = weight(_text_:und in 3888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032829512 = score(doc=3888,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 3888, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3888)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Technische- und finanzielle- Fragen sind nicht die einzigen Probleme, mit denen sich Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare herumschlagen müssen, wenn sie gedruckten Bestand digitalisieren und ihren Nutzern online zur Verfügung stellen wollen. Nicht minder schwierig sind die rechtlichen Klippen, die dabei umschifft werden müssen. Der folgende Text kann dabei nur eine erste Einführung sein. Zum Glück gibt es aber inzwischen eine Reihe von allgemeinverständlichen Seekarten, die helfen, rechtssicher ans Ziel zu kommen, ohne juristischen Schiffbruch zu erleiden?

0.004738532 = product of:
  0.02843119 = sum of:
    0.02843119 = weight(_text_:und in 3390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02843119 = score(doc=3390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3390)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 67(2016) H.5/6, S.341-342

0.004738532 = product of:
  0.02843119 = sum of:
    0.02843119 = weight(_text_:und in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02843119 = score(doc=5727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Telepolis: Kultur und Medien

0.0044675306 = product of:
  0.026805183 = sum of:
    0.026805183 = weight(_text_:und in 4076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026805183 = score(doc=4076,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 4076, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4076)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit den Rahmenbedingungen für analytische Anwendungen wie Big Data, die durch das neue europäische Datenschutzrecht entstehen, insbesondere durch die EU-Datenschutz-Grundverordnung. Er stellt wesentliche Neuerungen vor und untersucht die spezifischen datenschutzrechtlichen Regelungen im Hinblick auf den Einsatz von Big Data sowie Voraussetzungen, die durch die Verordnung abverlangt werden.

Source

JurPC: Internet-Zeitschrift für Rechtsinformatik und Informationsrecht, [http://www.jurpc.de/jurpc/show?id=20170111]

0.003948777 = product of:
  0.02369266 = sum of:
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 2512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=2512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2512)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/forschung-und-lehre/baden-wuerttemberg-entrechtet-seine-wissenschaftlichen-autoren-13988149-p3.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_3

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 4835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=4835,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 4835, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4835)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.001821651 = product of:
  0.010929906 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 3444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=3444,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 3444, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3444)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court case of 1991, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., continues to be highly significant for property in data and databases, but remains poorly understood. The approach taken in this article contrasts with previous studies. It focuses upon the not original rather than the original. The delineation of the absence of a modicum of creativity in selection, coordination, and arrangement of data as a component of the not original forms a pivotal point in the Supreme Court decision. The author also aims at elucidation rather than critique, using close textual exegesis of the Supreme Court decision. The results of the exegesis are translated into a more formal logical form to enhance clarity and rigor. The insufficiently creative is initially characterized as so mechanical or routine. Mechanical and routine are understood in their ordinary discourse senses, as a conjunction or as connected by AND, and as the central clause. Subsequent clauses amplify the senses of mechanical and routine without disturbing their conjunction. The delineation of the absence of a modicum of creativity can be correlated with classic conceptions of computability. The insufficiently creative can then be understood as a routine selection, coordination, or arrangement produced by an automatic mechanical procedure or algorithm. An understanding of a modicum of creativity and of copyright law is also indicated. The value of the exegesis and interpretation is identified as its final simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and potential practical utility.

0.001821651 = product of:
  0.010929906 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=955,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 955, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=955)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper develops an understanding of creativity to meet the requirements of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Feist v. Rural (1991). The inclusion of creativity in originality, in a minimal degree of creativity, and in a creative spark below the level required for originality, is first established. Conditions for creativity are simultaneously derived. Clauses negatively implying creativity are then identified and considered. The clauses that imply creativity can be extensively correlated with conceptions of computability. The negative of creativity is then understood as an automatic mechanical or computational procedure or a so routine process that results in a highly routine product. Conversely, creativity invariantly involves a not mechanical procedure. The not mechanical is then populated by meaning, in accord with accepted distinctions, drawing on a range of discourses. Meaning is understood as a different level of analysis to the syntactic or mechanical and also as involving direct human engagement with meaning. As direct engagement with meaning, it can be connected to classic concepts of creativity, through the association of dissimilars. Creativity is finally understood as not mechanical human activity above a certain level of routinicity. Creativity is then integrated with a minimal degree of creativity and with originality. The level of creativity required for a minimal degree is identified as intellectual. The combination of an intellectual level with a sufficient amount of creativity can be read from the exchange values connected with the product of creative activity. Humanly created bibliographic records and indexes are then possible correlates to, or constituents of, a minimal degree of creativity. A four-stage discriminatory process for determining originality is then specified. Finally, the strength and value of the argument are considered.