MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947394183 · doi:10.7202/1059252ar

La publicité comparative au Québec : est-ce une faute de comparer ?

2019· article· fr· W2947394183 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mistrale Goudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article a pour objet de déterminer si la publicité comparative véridique est ou non une activité légale dans le contexte du droit québécois. Après avoir passé en revue les textes de loi applicables, l’auteur analyse si l’acte de comparer ses produits à ceux d’un tiers constitue une faute entraînant une responsabilité délictuelle en vertu de l’article 1053 du Code civil du Bas-Canada . S’inspirant de l’article 22 de la Loi sur les marques de commerce , l’auteur conclut que cette pratique pourrait être considérée de nature délictuelle en 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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207