Cinq décisions rendues en 2013 en droit de la concurrence (Five Canadian Competition Law Decisions of Note Rendered in 2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Notre chronique vise a presenter de facon tres succincte les cinq decisions qui ont le plus attire notre attention dans le domaine du droit de la concurrence en 2013: la triologie rendue par la Cour supreme du Canada en matiere de recours collectif (Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd c Microsoft Corporation, Sun-Rype Products Ltd c Archer Daniels Midland Company et Infineon Technologies AG c Option Consommateurs), Canada (Commissaire de la concurrence) c Chatr Wireless Inc, Boulangerie Canada Bread ltee c Boulangerie St-Methode Inc, Tervita Corp c Canada (Commissaire de la concurrence) and R c Petroles Global Inc.English Abstract: In this article, we briefly comment on five court decisions rendered in 2013 we see as significant for Canadian competition law: the class action trilogy rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada (Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation, Sun-Rype Products Ltd v Archer Daniels Midland Company and Infineon Technologies AG v Option Consommateurs), Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Chatr Wireless Inc, Boulangerie Canada Bread ltee v Boulangerie St-Methode Inc, Tervita Corp v Canada (Commissioner of Competition) and R v Petroles Global Inc.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".