MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513886963 · doi:10.29173/alr251

Protecting Your Intellectual Capital in the Canadian Oil and Gas Industry

2012· article· en· W2513886963 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Frank Tosto, Evan Nuttall

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyCommercializationContext (archaeology)Energy lawEnforcementCLARITYBusinessPetroleum industryFossil fuelInternational tradeCapital (architecture)Industrial organizationEconomicsLawMarketingEnvironmental lawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technological advancements are a key economic driver in the energy sector, particularly in the Alberta oil sands. Underlying the commercialization and use of such advancements are patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property assets that can provide a competitive advantage in the energy sector. Appropriate planning and processes help maximize the advantage and minimize the risks associated with developing, protecting, licencing, enforcing, and otherwise leveraging intellectual property in the energy sector. This article includes a brief description of patents and trade secrets under Canadian intellectual property law. The article also includes a review of issues related to protecting patents and trade secrets, both in terms of developing the assets themselves and in terms of ensuring clarity of ownership with respect to employment and other contractual relationships between inventors and owners, as well as assignees, particularly within the context of joint ventures. Finally, the article provides a review of current Canadian law relevant to the enforcement of patents, with a focus on issues likely to arise in the litigation of patents for technology and trade secrets used in the oil and gas industry.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.124 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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