MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1810220748 · doi:10.1504/ijtm.1988.025959

Protecting and licensing trade secrets and know–how under Canadian law

2014· article· en· W1810220748 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTrade Secret Protection Methods
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrade secretConfidentialityMeaning (existential)BusinessLawIntellectual propertySubject (documents)Subject matterLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The requirement to protect new and sophisticated technological developments which are inappropriate for patent protection has increased the need to understand, protect and licence, where possible, trade secrets and know–how. This paper reviews and restates Canadian law and practice on this subject. Although defying strict legal definition, various understandings of the meaning of the terms trade secret and know–how are described, together with an outline of the legal basis for protecting trade secrets. The author supports the possessors of both commercial and industrial trade secrets in ensuring that those who are made privy to those secrets are regulated by the terms of carefully prepared, legally enforceable agreements. The subject–matter contained in licences, the rights granted therein, confidentiality understandings, royalty recovery and possible restrictions in licence agreements are also considered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it