MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE ON THE RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT THROUGH THE PRISM OF MATRIX GAMES

2022· article· en· W4389384488 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueEx Jure · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsCompensation (psychology)EnforcementMatrix (chemical analysis)Profitability indexComputer scienceLawLaw and economicsOutcome (game theory)EconomicsBusinessMathematical economicsPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: the article reveals the conditions for applying the matrix games toolkit to situations with legal content. Using the example of case no. A40-162373/2020 on the recovery of compensation for infringement of exclusive copyright, the compilation of the “profitability” matrix is demonstrated. Using the Bayes, Wald, Savage and Hurwitz criteria the optimal strategy of legal behavior of the copyright holder and the violator is mathematically justified. It is shown that predicting the outcome of a civil dispute using these criteria will allow the participants of the turnover to determine the strategy of legal behavior in the absence of a unified approach in law enforcement practice and minimize their own costs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.209 · 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