X.2 Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts From Selected Case Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“[5] The claimant is Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. (“GTH” or “Claimant”), a joint stock company incorporated under the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt (“Egypt”) and listed on the Egyptian Stock Exchange.1 [ . . . ] [11] In 2007, [ . . . ] Canada identified new Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) spectrum for release by auction. [ . . . ] Canada viewed the auction as an opportunity to open the market to new wireless operators (“New Entrants”).2[27] [ . . . ] One of those New Entrants was Wind Mobile, a joint venture between GTH and a Canadian operator [ . . . ]. [70] GTH asserts that, based on [ . . . ] [an amendment of Canada’s ownership and control rules and the Telecommunications Act], it expected to be able to obtain voting control over Wind Mobile pursuant to the company’s founding documents [ . . . ]. [71] However, GTH’s attempt to take voting control of Wind Mobile remained subject to review and approval under the Investment Canada Act (the “ICA”).3 Under the ICA, certain investments are subject to a net benefit review, in which the Investment Review Division of Industry Canada (the “IRD”) assesses whether the proposed transaction is “likely to be of net benefit to Canada.”4 In addition, the ICA had been amended in March 2009 to provide for a “review of investments in Canada by non-Canadians that could be injurious to national security.”5 Under the national security review provisions of the ICA, the GIC [Governor in Council] is empowered to “take any measures in respect of the investment that [it] considers advisable to protect national security, including . . . directing the non-Canadian not to implement the investment.”6[72] Pursuant to the ICA, on 24 October 2012, GTH’s wholly owned subsidiary GTHCL submitted an application seeking approval of its plans to acquire voting control of Wind Mobile and to purchase AAL’s shares of Wind Mobile (the “Voting Control Application”).7 [This part of the award is redacted, but essentially the national security review prevented GTH’s acquisition of voting control].”
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.010 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".