MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128395170

Artificial Intelligence and the Law in Canada

2020· article· en· W3128395170 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceTortLegal professionLaw and economicsSociologyLiability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to transform the economy, the nature of work, entire fields of human endeavor such as medicine and engineering, and the nature of government and commercial decision-making. Many of these transformations are already underway, with the technology advancing more quickly than we seem equipped to regulate it. Yet although there has been relatively little AI-specific litigation or legislation in Canada--or elsewhere for that matter--the rapid advance of these technologies creates a need to interrogate how our existing legal frameworks can apply or how they may need to adapt to this fundamentally disruptive technology. This book reflects upon the risks and the potential for AI technologies, providing valuable insight into the state of AI and the law in Canada. The book is divided into discrete topics discussing how AI interfaces or impacts traditional subject areas of law such as: copyright law; patent and trade secrets; contract law; tort law; data protection law; competition law; administrative law; and health 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
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