MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163096484

Introduction to Intellectual Property Law: Three Phases of Canada’s International IP Relations

2018· article· en· W3163096484 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyFutures studiesPolitical scienceInternational lawPosition (finance)Law and economicsState (computer science)Regionalism (politics)LawSociologyBusinessPoliticsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s place in the international legal landscape of intellectual property (IP) has shifted dramatically in the last 150 years. It could shift even more in the next 50. This introduction offers readers a framework for thinking strategically about Canada’s past, present and future in international IP law. It explains how Canada’s position progressed over three historical phases of about a half-century each. While the deepest accounts of Canada’s evolving approaches treat the domains of IP separately,1 or offer regionally centred analyses,2 the present high-level treatment offers an integrated overview of international IP relations in general. It concludes with three topics — mega-regionalism, sub-state engagement, and private and soft law measures — requiring strategic foresight to successfully reposition Canada for the next half-century.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.265
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