MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236585934 · doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpm255

In Person

2007· article· en· W4236585934 on OpenAlex
P. Jones

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduleThe InternetCompetition (biology)Work (physics)Unfair competitionBusinessLawIntersection (aeronautics)Competition lawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomicsManagementEngineeringMonopolyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paul Jones is with Jones & Co., a multi-lingual law firm in Toronto, Canada. He found time in his busy schedule to respond to questions posed by JIPLP. I began as a commercial lawyer doing franchising, which led to an interest in trade marks. Later I had a small client who was threatened with litigation in an international patent dispute for doing normal repair work on some mining equipment. I thought the threats were unfair, but they were very effective. So I became interested in the intersection of IP law and competition law. It was the internet. After the patent dispute mentioned above, I started reading as many cases, policy reports, and blogs as I could. The internet was invaluable in providing access to materials—in particular academic papers.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.145 · 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