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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambush marketing is any attempt to create an unauthorised or false association with an event thereby interfering with the legitimate contractual rights of the event's official marketing partners. Looking at both traditional intellectual property rights (such as trade marks, copyright, and designs) as they relate to sporting events, and event-specific legislation (such as that of the Olympics and Commonwealth Games), this book gives comprehensive and detailed coverage of ambush marketing. Also considered are the areas of law which can be used to prevent ambush marketing by intrusion (such as laws to prevent fly postering, street trading, the placing of posters and billboards, and control of aerial space). The book addresses the law in the United Kingdom and the EU in detail, and provides substantial coverage of the laws in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. This new edition addresses the recent Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 as well as the major changes to the law in Australia with three new laws governing major events and Canada with its major overhaul of trade mark, design, and copyright 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it