L’ACTION EN CONCURRENCE DÉLOYALE ET LES RECOURS INDEMNITAIRES CANADIENS EN MATIÈRE DE CONCURRENCE : QUEL DIALOGUE EN DROIT CIVIL QUÉBÉCOIS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le présent article, l’auteur propose de définir l’identité de l’action en concurrence déloyale, telle qu’elle ressort de l’article 1457 du Code civil du Québec. Dressant le tableau des recours indemnitaires en droit de la concurrence, il détermine la nature juridique de chaque action afin de comprendre ce qui distingue le recours civiliste en concurrence déloyale au Québec des recours indemnitaires offerts dans la Loi sur la concurrence et la Loi sur les marques de commerce. Il propose trois critères distinctifs afin de démontrer que seul le recours de l’article 1457 du Code civil du Québec est véritablement une action en concurrence déloyale, contrairement à ce que suggère la jurisprudence. L’objectif est de redonner à l’action en concurrence déloyale une véritable identité civiliste sans transposer l’analyse du droit français à cette notion. In fine, l’auteur parvient à une analyse contextuelle propre au droit québécois.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".