MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910570850

LA CLAUSE DE NON-SOLLICITATION EST MORTE, LONGUE VIE A LA CLAUSE DE NON-SOLLICITATION?

2013· article· fr· W2910570850 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karim Renno

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceGoodwillBusinessSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the sphere of restrictive clauses in Quebec employment law, the non-solicitation clause has always taken a back seat to its older cousin, the non-competition clause. Yet, it remains an important tool at the disposal of the employer who wishes to legitimately protect its goodwill and clientele, without prohibiting his ex-employees from earning a living in their chosen field of work. However, certain recent decisions have adopted a very restrictive definition of what constitutes solicitation and, in so doing, have jeopardized the effectiveness of nonsolicitation clauses. In the present text, we shall analyze and critique this new line of case 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.022
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207