MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483942967 · doi:10.29173/alr113

Join the Club: The Implications of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement's Enforcement Measures for Canadian Copyright Law

2012· article· en· W2483942967 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Elizabeth F. Judge, Saleh Al‐Sharieh

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaGlobal Affairs Canada
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsIntellectual propertyEnforcementModernization theoryNegotiationLawCopyright lawLegislatureRelated rightsPolitical scienceTRIPS AgreementCopyright ActExclusive rightCommon law copyrightTrade agreementCopyright infringementLaw and economicsBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is the most recent international agreement by which Canada and other countries have sought to strengthen the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. While it was originally feared that ACTA would impose obligations that are in tension with the principles of Canadian copyright law, the final outcome of the ACTA negotiations moderated or removed many of the most controversial provisions in the agreement and thus has alleviated many of the concerns about the impact of ACTA on Canadian copyright law. Canada has taken the first steps toward satisfying ACTA’s copyright obligations with Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, which addresses some of the agreement’s digital copyright measures. Some legislative change still remains before Canada will have fully met ACTA’s copyright obligations, in particular to enhance the powers of customs and border authorities to enforce intellectual property rights. This article discusses ACTA’s evolution, negotiations, final text, and the extent of its rightsholder orientation. It then details the differences between ACTA’s provisions and the current Canadian Copyright Act, as amended by the Copyright Modernization Act, identifies which obligations in ACTA require further amendment, and suggests how these obligations may best be implemented to reflect important values and principles underlying Canadian copyright 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 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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207