Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This chapter considers two separate notions which lie beyond the tort of passing off: a broad-based action for misappropriation of intangibles, and a much narrower sui generis tort of appropriation of personality. As regards the latter, the common law jurisdictions in Canada, most notably Ontario, have preferred not to follow the Australian example, and have recognised that the misappropriation of another person's name or likeness may, in certain circumstances, be an actionable wrong in itself. It should be noted that several parallel developments may be seen in the Canadian provinces: first, the statutory torts of invasion of privacy in Manitoba, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan; second, developments in Quebec, based on The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code ; third, the Ontario common law tort of appropriation of personality; fourth, the embryonic common law tort of invasion of privacy. This chapter is only concerned with the common law tort of appropriation of personality which has been largely, although not exclusively, the work of the Ontario courts. Although the common law tort is still very much in its infancy, its development and scope are outlined below. Before doing so, the much wider, and more uncertain, notion of a tort of misappropriation of intangibles is considered briefly. Misappropriation of intangibles At various times it has been suggested that the Commonwealth courts have been going beyond the bounds of the tort of passing off and entering the realms of a new tort of unfair competition or misappropriation as the categories of actionable misrepresentation have been expanded and the requirement of damage accepted as being more readily satisfied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".