MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513686075 · doi:10.29173/alr247

“Patent Unreasonableness is Dead. And We Have Killed It.” A Critique of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in <i>Dunsmuir</i>

2008· article· en· W2513686075 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ron Goltz

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawPolitical sciencePatent trollPatent lawLaw and economicsEconomicsIntellectual property

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upon arriving back to work after a brief yet refreshing trip to Las Vegas, my colleague burst into my office lamenting, "The Supreme Court has completely changed administrative law! They have killed off patent unreasonableness as a standard of review!" I felt an ominous sinking feeling, a sense of shock, and heartache, akin to the pain and loss that I felt when Tony Soprano pinched the nostrils of his nephew Christopher and watched him drift off into the great unknown. I hurriedly printed off the 7 March 2008, Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 1 and read it with bated breath, expecting the worst, yet hoping to find renewal and perhaps even a sort of rebirth into a fabulous new world of administrative 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207