MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802287812

Canada : The Competition tribunal confirms and strengthens the analytical framework of interpretation and application of the provision on abuse of dominant position in a review (The Toronto Real Estate Board)

2016· review· en· W2802287812 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karounga Diawara

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrences Review · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Interpretation (philosophy)Competition (biology)Real estateTribunalEstateBusinessAgency (philosophy)Regional sciencePolitical scienceSociologyLawComputer scienceFinanceSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On April 27, 2016, the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) issued the long-awaited reconsideration judgment in the judicial saga between the Canadian competition authority, the Commissioner, and…

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0210.017
Scholarly communication0.0200.005
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0250.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrences ReviewSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207