MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118329406

Supreme Court of Canada's Appraisal of the 1980 Ban on Advertising to Children in Quebec: Implications for Misleading Advertising Elsewhere

2006· article· en· W2118329406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bill Jeffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueLoyola of Los Angeles law review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtAdvertisingPolitical scienceLawBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This has sparked a renewed public concern about marketing efforts targeted at children.In essence, a compelling body of evidence suggests that advertisers of toys, sedentary entertainment products, 3 and, especially, unhealthful foods, may be manufacturing premature death and disability due to heart disease, stroke, certain forms of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity and other diseases by inducing life-long patterns of poor diet and physical inactivity.4 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a substantial portion-and in some parts of the world, most--of the preventable loss of disabilityfree life-years can be averted by adopting a healthful diet and engaging in physical activity.5 This Article examines the unique legislative ban on advertising to children under age thirteen in the Canadian province of Quebec.Relying in part on the Supreme Court of Canada's endorsement of the child developmental evidence underpinning the Qudbec law,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0270.010
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0450.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueLoyola of Los Angeles law reviewSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207