MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919054898 · doi:10.7202/1056295ar

Le droit moral de l’auteur au Canada

2019· article· fr· W2919054898 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mistrale Goudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEthnologyPolitical scienceAuteur theoryPhilosophySociologyArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article brosse un tableau général de la protection du droit moral de l’auteur au Canada. Dans un premier temps, les débuts de ce droit en Europe et au Canada sont mis en lumière. L’article analyse ensuite les dispositions qui reconnaissent formellement le droit moral dans la loi fédérale sur le droit d’auteur, ainsi que les autres règles de droit qui protègent indirectement le lien intellectuel qui unit un auteur à son oeuvre. Cette analyse amène l’auteure à traiter de la compétence législative sur le droit moral et des problèmes constitutionnels que soulève le chevauchement des règles fédérales et provinciales en la matière.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207