Search every field
Partial results: at least one source did not answer. Available results are shown rather than treating an upstream outage as zero matches.
Source status
- crossref
- europe-pmc
- datacite
- pubmed
- doaj
- zenodo
- hal
- arxiv
- doab
[Legal responsibility in AI-assisted radiological reporting].
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Radial Cortical and Trabecular Bone Densities of Men and Women Standardized with the European Forearm Phantom
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
The Simultaneous Measurement of Epithelial Ion Transport and Intracellular Free Ca 2+ in Cultured Equine Sweat Gland Secretory Epithelium
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Concentration-Dependent Changes of PCB Patterns in Fish-Eating Mammals: Structural Evidence for Induction of Cytochrome P450
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Access to the Left Atrium for Delivery of Radiofrequency Ablation in Young Patients: Retrograde Aortic vs Transseptal Approach
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Precautionary Principle in Adjudicating Uncertainties: A Short Review on Science and Law.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Risk and liability in the deployment of AI systems for surgery: a SAGES white paper.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Informational externalities and settlements in mass tort litigations
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Artificial intelligence in the EU Safe Hearts Plan: prediction alone is not enough.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
A European study on the genetics of mite sensitization
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
CYP3A activity in European American and Japanese men using midazolam as an in vivo probe
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Highlights from the XXII Congress of the European Society of Cardiology: August 26 to 30, 2000
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
The law and who can expose dental radiographs
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Neutropenia, neutrophil dysfunction, and inflammatory bowel disease in glycogen storage disease type Ib: Results of the European Study on Glycogen Storage Disease Type I
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Multiple intrasplenic hepatocyte transplantations in the dalmatian dog
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Pre-market clinical investigation approval pathways and the role of Early Feasibility Studies for medical devices: a scoping review to guide EU policy.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Private by default: reasonable expectations in secondary uses of patient data.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Comparative Legal Analysis of German and Austrian Constitutional Court Decisions on the Criminal Liability of Assisting Suicide.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Liability Risks of Ambient Clinical Workflows With Artificial Intelligence for Clinicians, Hospitals, and Manufacturers.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Towards Protecting the Injured Party from Errors and Hallucinations of Artificial Intelligence: A Contemporary Legal Perspective.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Fault, Damage and the Equivalence Principle in French Law
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
The Culture of Tort Law in France
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Tort Law and Mass Transportation Accidents : A French-German View on Legal Challenges in Times of Market Deregulation
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Liability for Not Preventing Harm in France
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
The Role of Soft-Law in Adjudicating Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Interpreting the Alien Tort Statute in the Light of the UN Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Tackling the Climate Crisis with Counter-majoritarian Instruments: Judges between Political Paralysis, Science, and International Law
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Evolving artificial intelligence and robotics in medicine, evolving European law: Comparative remarks based on the surgery litigation
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://intr2dok.vifa-recht.de/content/rights/rights.xml. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
RIGHT TO STRIKE
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Governance of artificial intelligence for health systems, WHO European Region.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Diverging regulatory DNA in adaptive medical AI: US agility and EU accountability in lifecycle governance.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
AI product liability under EU and Canadian laws.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Deepfake-induced harm and AI accountability: a layered civil-liability framework for generative models, platforms, and digital identity.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Executable explanation traces for legal LLM predictions via retrieval-augmented codification.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Toward fairness in digital consumer protection: a comparative legal and socio-regulatory perspective on digital platform governance.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
A Child-Centered Framework for Determining Mental Distress Severity and Liability: Evidence from Chinese Judicial Practice.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
From Criminal Liability to Patient Safety: The Possible Impact of the Italian 2025 Reform Proposal on Senior Healthcare Leadership and Clinical Risk Management.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
How Often Do Pharmacists End up in Court? Analysis of Civil and Criminal Case Law in Poland.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
The right to die: Legal analysis of end-of-life decisions in Ukraine.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Global Legal Architecture for Active Sensing Signal Fusion: Integrating Radar-Lidar-Sonar Cross-Modal Processing, Transnational Navigation Sovereignty, and Algorithmic Liability Standards into Cross-Border Autonomous Operations Frameworks Prepared and Authored by Dr. Mohamed Kamal Arafa El-Rakhawi International Law & Emerging Technologies Governance Specialist Abstract The global deployment of active sensing architectures, encompassing radar, lidar, sonar, and multi-spectral emitter systems, has fundamentally transformed autonomous navigation, cross-border surveillance, maritime traffic management, and aerial corridor coordination. Despite their engineering maturity in cross-modal signal fusion, interference mitigation, and real-time spatial tracking, these systems operate within a fragmented transnational regulatory landscape where spectrum allocation statutes, navigation sovereignty doctrines, and algorithmic liability frameworks lack interoperable compliance standards. While technical implementations achieve high precision in target detection, environmental mapping, and dynamic obstacle avoidance, they provide no legally calibrated translation mechanism to satisfy international spectrum usage mandates, cross-jurisdictional navigation clearance thresholds, or harmonized operational liability standards. This study introduces, for the first time globally, a unified legal-technical architecture that transforms active sensing fusion metrics into internationally harmonized navigation and spectrum governance standards. The framework operationalizes two novel constructs: the Active Sensing Compliance Matrix (ASCM), which maps cross-modal fusion stability, electromagnetic and acoustic interference rejection scores, and localization precision to transnational navigation safety and spectrum sovereignty tiers, and the Cross-Border Sensor Liability Protocol (CBSLP), which dynamically calibrates collision avoidance decision boundaries, sensor fault attribution weights, and spectrum usage compliance to legally recognized liability and operational adequacy thresholds. By integrating multi-sensor signal fusion, cryptographic telemetry anchoring, and international navigation and spectrum harmonization doctrine, this research establishes the first globally scalable standard for legally enforceable active sensing governance. Through comparative legal analysis and a counterfactual simulation of a transnational maritime-aviation corridor incident involving multi-sensor autonomous navigation, we demonstrate that ASCM alignment exceeding zero point eight five combined with CBSLP verification satisfies spectrum compliance, navigation sovereignty, safety certification, and cross-border enforcement requirements across European, North American, Asian, Middle Eastern, and hybrid jurisdictions. This framework bridges the historical divide between active sensing signal processing engineering and international navigation and spectrum law, positioning cross-modal emitter systems as legally verifiable, globally interoperable, and sovereign-compliant operational paradigms. Keywords Active Sensing Signal Fusion · Radar-Lidar-Sonar Integration · Transnational Navigation Sovereignty · Cross-Border Sensor Liability · Spectrum Compliance · Global Autonomous Operations Law · Multi-Sensor Fusion Governance · Algorithmic Navigation Standards · Electromagnetic Interference Mitigation 1. Introduction The exponential proliferation of active sensing systems utilizing radio frequency, optical, and acoustic emitters has redefined the operational architecture of global autonomous navigation, border surveillance, maritime traffic control, and aerial corridor management. Modern active sensing platforms integrate radar Doppler processing, lidar point cloud mapping, sonar bathymetric scanning, and multi-static emitter arrays to achieve continuous environmental perception, target tracking, and dynamic path optimization across complex transnational operational zones. Despite their transformative impact on safety enhancement, traffic efficiency, and cross-border mobility, these active sensing signal processing systems operate within a legally fragmented international environment where national spectrum allocation statutes, navigation sovereignty frameworks, and algorithmic liability doctrines impose conflicting compliance requirements. Instruments such as the International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, International Civil Aviation Organization Annexes, European Union Radio Equipment Directive and Artificial Intelligence Act, and regional spectrum management frameworks across Asia, Africa, and the Global South establish stringent frequency licensing, navigation right-of-way, and operational safety obligations, yet provide no standardized methodology for evaluating cross-modal sensor fusion metrics against transnational legal thresholds. This regulatory misalignment creates systemic friction that impedes cross-border autonomous deployment, delays international navigation certification, and exposes system operators, spectrum licensees, and infrastructure providers to jurisdictional liability fragmentation, regulatory enforcement actions, and cross-border operational dispute escalation. Current compliance approaches rely on localized spectrum licensing, static navigation safety audits, and bilateral operational agreements that are fundamentally incompatible with continuous, adaptive multi-sensor fusion and real-time emitter coordination. Technical cross-modal registration accuracy, interference rejection ratios, and tracking confidence intervals generate engineering reliability guarantees, yet judicial authorities, spectrum regulators, and international navigation agencies require legally calibrated thresholds that map directly to statutory definitions of spectrum compliance, navigation sovereignty adequacy, and cross-border operational accountability. This epistemological gap between active sensing signal processing outputs and international navigation and spectrum doctrine creates a governance vacuum where multi-emitter autonomous systems operate in legal gray zones, vulnerable to jurisdictional conflicts, certification disputes, and transnational liability fragmentation. This paper presents the world's first globally interoperable legal architecture for active sensing signal fusion and cross-border autonomous operations. By translating cross-modal fusion stability, interference mitigation performance, and localization precision metrics into jurisdictionally calibrated navigation, spectrum, and liability standards, we introduce a paradigm shift from technical sensor validation to legally verifiable transnational operations governance. The framework operationalizes the Active Sensing Compliance Matrix (ASCM) and the Cross-Border Sensor Liability Protocol (CBSLP), enabling continuous, cryptographically auditable compliance monitoring that satisfies international regulatory requirements. The primary objectives are to establish the first universally applicable legal-technical active sensing governance standard, to demonstrate how multi-sensor fusion metrics can be mapped to international navigation and spectrum thresholds, and to validate the framework through a counterfactual simulation of transnational autonomous corridor deployment. This work bridges active sensing signal processing, multi-modal emitter coordination, cryptographic telemetry anchoring, and international navigation and spectrum harmonization, offering the first unified architecture for legally enforceable, globally interoperable active sensing operations governance. 2. Theoretical Foundation: Bridging Active Sensing Signal Processing and Transnational Navigation and Spectrum Law The proposed framework originates from the convergence of cross-modal radar-lidar-sonar fusion, interference mitigation signal processing, real-time spatial tracking optimization, and international navigation sovereignty and spectrum harmonization doctrine. Traditional active sensing certification operates on static laboratory testing benchmarks, whereas transnational operations governance requires legally calibrated navigation, spectrum, and liability thresholds that survive multi-jurisdictional scrutiny and adaptive emitter coordination environments. Active Sensing Compliance Matrix (ASCM) The ASCM is a standardized compliance metric ranging from zero to one, quantifying the legal alignment of active sensing fusion systems with international navigation safety, spectrum allocation, and cross-border operational tiers. Unlike raw point cloud registration accuracy or Doppler velocity precision metrics, the ASCM is mapped to global operations standards: values exceeding zero point seven five satisfy regional spectrum licensing and navigation certification requirements, values exceeding zero point eight five satisfy international cross-border corridor deployment adequacy thresholds, and values exceeding zero point nine five satisfy sovereign navigation control, algorithmic transparency, and continuous spectrum audit mandates. The ASCM integrates cross-modal fusion stability scores, electromagnetic and acoustic interference rejection calibration, localization precision boundary verification, and cryptographic telemetry integrity into a single legally admissible composite operations rating. Cross-Border Sensor Liability Protocol (CBSLP) The CBSLP is a procedural calibration metric that evaluates the legal sufficiency of collision avoidance decision boundaries, sensor fault attribution weights, and spectrum usage compliance protocols under transnational navigation and liability regimes. It formalizes the relationship between technical multi-sensor fusion performance parameters and judicially recognized thresholds of operational negligence and liability allocation. The CBSLP shifts active sensing evaluation from static detection accuracy validation to dynamic liability calibration, ensuring that regulatory authorities, spectrum agencies, and judicial bodies recognize autonomous navigation systems that maintain legally acceptable risk probabilities across heterogeneous jurisdictional navigation rights, spectrum sharing frameworks, and tort liability standards. Integration with Cross-Modal Emitter and Autonomous Navigation Pipelines The framework embeds ASCM and CBSLP directly into active sensing operational workflows. Local emitter arrays capture radio frequency returns, optical point clouds, and acoustic bathymetric data subjected to cross-modal registration algorithms generating real-time environmental classification and obstacle tracking confidence intervals. Interference mitigation modules apply adaptive filtering, cognitive spectrum sensing, and multi-static coordination to reject electromagnetic and acoustic clutter. The resulting fusion stability, interference rejection, and navigation decision outputs are cryptographically sealed into distributed compliance ledgers and translated into ASCM and CBSLP scores, establishing the first legally calibrated operations governance layer that operates natively within global active sensing signal processing architectures. 3. Methodology and Operations Governance Architecture To operationalize the framework in transnational autonomous deployments and international regulatory environments, we propose a three-tier governance architecture designed for cryptographic integrity, jurisdictional interoperability, and continuous navigation and spectrum validation. Cryptographic Telemetry Anchoring and Spectrum Logging Layer Active sensing signal ingestion triggers automatic emitter frequency logging, cross-modal registration timestamping, and interference environment profiling. These parameters are cryptographically anchored to a distributed operations ledger using timestamped merkle root commitments with spectrum usage hash verification. This layer ensures that frequency licensing compliance, navigation right-of-way verification, and operational transparency requirements are satisfied from the moment of system initialization, eliminating evidence contamination vulnerabilities inherent in traditional multi-sensor telemetry handling and enabling verifiable operations lineage tracking across jurisdictional boundaries. Interference Resilience Stress-Testing and Fusion Validation All active sensing deployments undergo standardized adversarial and environmental stress-testing protocols, including electromagnetic interference injection, acoustic multipath simulation, lidar occlusion probing, and cross-modal registration drift testing. Fusion systems are evaluated for stability under spectrum congestion, navigation rule conflicts, and sensor degradation scenarios. Resilience scores are computed as weighted compliance distributions. Operational cycles failing to maintain ASCM stability above jurisdictional thresholds under stress testing are classified as legally non-compliant, triggering mandatory emitter recalibration, spectrum handover protocols, and supplementary navigation audit procedures. Evidentiary Translation and Cross-Border Operations Enforcement Protocol The framework includes a jurisdictional compliance matrix that maps ASCM and CBSLP scores to domestic and international navigation and spectrum regulations. Automated translation modules generate regulator-ready and court-admissible compliance reports that align with International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations frequency coordination requirements, International Civil Aviation Organization and International Maritime Organization navigation safety directives, European Union AI Act high-risk autonomous systems provisions, United States Federal Communications Commission spectrum sharing frameworks, and UNCLOS territorial waters navigation principles. This architecture establishes the first globally interoperable regulatory translation system, enabling active sensing fusion operations to satisfy spectrum compliance certification, navigation sovereignty verification, liability attribution, and cross-border enforcement requirements across divergent legal traditions and autonomous operations governance models. 4. Comparative Legal Analysis Existing international navigation, spectrum, and autonomous systems regulations are evaluated through the framework lens, revealing structural limitations that the proposed legal-technical standard directly resolves. Regulatory Instrument: International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations and EU Radio Equipment Directive Spectrum and Operations Approach: Mandatory frequency coordination, interference mitigation obligations, and equipment conformity assessments for active emitters Identified Gap: Lacks continuous, cross-modal fusion-calibrated compliance scoring; imposes static spectrum licensing audits incompatible with dynamic cognitive sensing and adaptive emitter coordination Legal-Technical Alternative: ASCM provides dynamic, interference-aware spectrum and navigation certification with continuous jurisdictional alignment verification Jurisprudential Alignment: Translates static frequency coordination mandates into court-admissible, real-time active sensing governance standards Regulatory Instrument: International Civil Aviation Organization and International Maritime Organization Navigation Frameworks Navigation and Liability Approach: Right-of-way conventions, collision avoidance regulations, and crew/operator override requirements for autonomous navigation systems Identified Gap: No standardized forensic authentication protocol for multi-sensor fusion drift or collision avoidance decision boundary violations; liability burden falls on operators without technical validation tools for cross-modal fault attribution Legal-Technical Alternative: CBSLP establishes immutable navigation liability distribution trails, shifting verification burden from institutional self-certification to cryptographic operations audit Jurisprudential Alignment: Converts navigation safety mandates into proactive, regulator-admissible autonomous liability infrastructure Regulatory Instrument: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and UNCITRAL Cross-Border Operations Principles Navigation and Sovereignty Approach: Territorial waters navigation rights, innocent passage doctrines, and cross-border operational coordination frameworks Identified Gap: No technical implementation pathway for transnational active sensing compliance verification or continuous navigation sovereignty and spectrum risk monitoring Legal-Technical Alternative: ASCM and CBSLP bridge navigation sovereignty principles with engineering deployment through algorithmic fusion and liability validation Jurisprudential Alignment: Establishes the first technical extension of UNCLOS and cross-border operations principles to cover multi-sensor autonomous navigation governance This structured analysis demonstrates that existing legal instruments, while politically significant, lack the technical infrastructure required for transnational active sensing operations governance. The proposed framework introduces the first globally interoperable standard that aligns statutory intent with cryptographic navigation and spectrum verification. 5. Counterfactual Case Study: Transnational Maritime-Aviation Corridor and Multi-Sensor Autonomous Navigation To validate the operational viability of the framework, we apply the ASCM and CBSLP architecture to a historically documented scenario of multinational autonomous deployment involving distributed radar-lidar-sonar fusion and cross-border navigation coordination. Scenario Description: Global Autonomous Shipping Lane and Aerial Corridor Integration Network The initiative involved coordinated active sensing navigation managing cross-border maritime traffic routing, aerial drone corridor management, and dynamic environmental adaptation across European, Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian, and North American jurisdictions. The network enabled interference-resilient, signal-driven autonomous decision-making for collision avoidance, right-of-way compliance, and load balancing algorithms. However, divergent national spectrum allocation laws, conflicting navigation liability standards, and opaque cross-modal fusion protocols triggered regulatory scrutiny, sovereignty audits, and cross-border operational restrictions that threatened network continuity. ASCM and CBSLP Application Simulation Reconstructing the active sensing workflow through the proposed framework reveals a clear compliance and liability trajectory. Initial jurisdiction mapping, cross-modal fusion stability validation, and interference rejection verification generated baseline ASCM scores. Spectrum congestion and navigation stress testing subjected emitter arrays to electromagnetic interference, acoustic multipath, and lidar occlusion protocols. The ASCM stabilized at zero point nine one across all participating jurisdictions, satisfying cross-border navigation adequacy and sovereign spectrum control thresholds. Simultaneously, the CBSLP cryptographic ledger verified that collision avoidance decisions accurately reflected multi-sensor contribution weights, spectrum usage compliance boundaries, and navigation right-of-way protocols under all tested operational vectors, confirming legal liability sufficiency. Under the proposed framework, spectrum regulators and maritime/aviation authorities across participating nations would have received standardized navigation and compliance dashboards within minutes of operational cycle completion, enabling immediate regulatory clearance, uninterrupted cross-border corridor coordination, and unified incident adjudication documentation. Discussion of Regulatory Viability The counterfactual analysis confirms that cryptographic telemetry anchoring and algorithmic navigation calibration are not merely technical constructs but operationally deployable compliance and liability safeguards. The ASCM functions as a legally calibrated spectrum and navigation metric, while the CBSLP satisfies fault attribution, right-of-way compliance, and cross-border enforcement requirements across European, American, Asian, Middle Eastern, and hybrid operations governance traditions. Limitations include jurisdictional threshold calibration variability, computational overhead for large-scale interference stress testing, and spectrum sharing coordination latency. These challenges are addressable through standardized regulatory accreditation protocols, distributed compliance verification networks, and international navigation and spectrum harmonization agreements under the proposed Global Active Sensing Operations Standard (GASOS). 6. Conclusion and Future Research Directions This study introduces the world's first globally interoperable legal architecture for active sensing signal fusion and cross-border autonomous operations, replacing fragmented navigation and spectrum methodologies with standardized, cryptographically verifiable governance protocols. By embedding the Active Sensing Compliance Matrix and the Cross-Border Sensor Liability Protocol directly into radar-lidar-sonar fusion pipelines, interference mitigation architectures, and cryptographic telemetry workflows, we establish a new paradigm for regulatory compliance, transnational navigation interoperability, and legally enforceable operational liability attribution. The framework demonstrates that active sensing operations can be transformed from technical probability into regulatory certainty, bridging the historical divide between multi-modal emitter engineering and international navigation and spectrum doctrine. The proposed Global Active Sensing Operations Standard provides a scalable pathway for spectrum regulators, navigation authorities, international certification bodies, and cross-border autonomous operators to adopt unified verification protocols without compromising operational efficiency, navigation safety, or jurisdictional sovereignty. Future research will extend ASCM calibration to quantum-secure telemetry architectures, develop open-source interference resilience testing toolkits for international accreditation, and conduct pilot deployments within multinational maritime traffic management, aerial corridor coordination, and border surveillance networks. Additionally, we will draft technical specifications for cryptographic operations ledger standardization under international navigation and spectrum harmonization bodies, establishing the first globally recognized regulatory benchmark for active sensing signal fusion governance. By transforming autonomous navigation compliance from technical probability into legal certainty, this research lays the foundation for a transparent, regulatorily resilient, and sovereignty-respecting global operations order. The era of fragmented active sensing certification has reached its limit. The era of globally admissible, navigation-aligned autonomous operations governance begins now. References 1. El-Rakhawy, M. K. A. (2026). Cryptographic Provenance and Adversarial Robustness in Synthetic Media Detection. Journal of Digital Forensics and Cyber Law. 2. El-Rakhawy, M. K. A. (2026). Probabilistic Authenticity Thresholds: Mapping Algorithmic Detection to Evidentiary Standards. International Journal of Evidence and Information Technology. 3. El-Rakhawy, M. K. A. (2026). Chain of Custody Cryptographic Ledgers for Cross-Border Digital Evidence. AI and Judicial Systems Review. 4. El-Rakhawy, M. K. A. (2026). Legal Translation Protocols for Generative Media Authentication. Computer Law and Forensic Science Review. 5. International Telecommunication Union. (2024). Radio Regulations and Spectrum Sharing Frameworks for Active Sensing Systems. Geneva: ITU Publications. 6. International Civil Aviation Organization & International Maritime Organization. (2023). Cross-Border Navigation Safety and Autonomous Systems Coordination Directives. Montreal/London: ICAO/IMO Publications. 7. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (1982/2023 Amendments). Territorial Waters, Innocent Passage, and Maritime Navigation Rights. United Nations Publications. 8. NIST. (2024). Active Sensing Signal Processing and Multi-Sensor Fusion Reliability Framework. Gaithersburg, MD. 9. Zeng, J., et al. (2025). Interference Mitigation and Cross-Modal Fusion Robustness Testing for Radar-Lidar-Sonar Architectures. Machine Learning and Applications: An International Journal, 12(3), 325–342. 10. Citron, D. K., & Solove, D. J. (2024). Transnational Navigation Sovereignty and Cross-Border Autonomous Operations Accountability. Washington Law Review, 99(4), 575–602. © 2026 Dr. Mohamed Kamal Arafa El-Rakhawi. All rights reserved. Intellectual, Literary, Moral, and Proprietary Rights Statement This research paper, including all theoretical frameworks, mathematical constructs, architectural models, analytical methodologies, and textual content, constitutes the exclusive intellectual and creative property of the author. All literary, moral, material, and proprietary rights are fully reserved under international copyright conventions and the Egyptian Intellectual Property Law. No portion of this work may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, translated, archived, or utilized in any form or by any means—whether electronic, mechanical, photographic, or algorithmic—without the express prior written consent of the author. This reservation explicitly extends to the prohibition of unauthorized ingestion into artificial intelligence training corpora, dataset compilation, or automated derivative generation. Any scholarly citation must strictly adhere to international academic attribution standards and must not imply endorsement, co-authorship, or institutional affiliation beyond the original authorship. Ismailia, Egypt | April 2026
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
ORGANOID INTELLIGENCE LAW: LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPUTING AND NEURO-ETHICAL GOVERNANCE
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Компенсація шкоди, завданої порушенням житлових прав у зв'язку з військовою агресією: проблема визначення кола суб'єктів звернення
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
he Ideal Victim: A Criminological Approach
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- not scoredDOI registered: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDOI resolves: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Punitive Damages in France: a new deal ?
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- not scoredDOI registered: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDOI resolves: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Reforming the European Product Liability Directive : Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose ?
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- not scoredDOI registered: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDOI resolves: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Terrorism, Terror and Their Victims in Philosophy
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- not scoredDOI registered: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDOI resolves: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.