MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392267955

La protection de l'information économique en droit comparé franco-canadien : droit à la confidentialité et droit d’accès à l’information pour le public : le cas des lanceurs d’alerte

2022· preprint· fr· W4392267955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeanne Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityInternet privacyPolitical scienceLawRight to knowBusinessComputer securityComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic information is any piece of knowledge that is secret and has market value. These last years have been marked by an inflation of the legal regulation favorable to the protection of this information, and this as much in France, in Europe as in Canada, in order to guarantee private actors’ prosperity, innovation and economic competitiveness. As such, there is certainly some form of right to confidentiality for entities keeping this information secret. At the same time, the number of scandals and revelations of illicitactivities calls into question the absolutism of this secrecy. A fundamental movement in favor of greater transparency seems to be taking hold. In this context, is the protection of economic information organized to the detriment of other social interests, in particular health and safety of the public? On the contrary, it may seem necessary, in certain circumstances, to access economic information to protect these equally fundamental values in society. Whistleblowers occupy a prominent place in this debate between protection of the secrecy of economic information and the need to access this information. Through their freedom of conscience and expression,they make economic information available. They are the ones who make the connection between the two concepts, when they decide to reveal secret economic information, to alert the public to a danger or a worrying situation. Whistleblowers finds themself at the heart of the debate and the tensions surrounding these two contradictory imperatives. French law and Canadian law already offer some solutions to resolve this conflict. However, those solutions do not appear to be sufficient. We will endeavor to verify whethera balance can be found between the needs to protect the interests of companies holding economic information, and the protection of public interests, and what impact this balance may have on whistleblowers’ legal status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207