Private Party Access to the Competition Tribunal: A Critical Evaluation of the Section 103.1 Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author examines private access to the Competition Tribunal under section 103.1 of the Competition Act. After considering the proceedings of private parties that have taken place before the Tribunal, he analyzes the requirements that must be met in order to have access and the remedies available. Assessing these from a policy perspective, the author suggests two revisions to the Competition Act: lowering the standing requirement for individuals from having their businesses be “directly and substantially” affected to merely having their businesses be “directly and materially” affected, and expanding section 103.1 to include the possibility of bringing applications for reviewable practices falling under section 79.
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 | 0.086 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".