MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399082981 · doi:10.29173/mlj1053

Franchise Law: Consultation Paper 2007

2009· article· en· W4399082981 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.

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

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFranchising Strategies and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFranchiseBusinessLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A. Background to the Project he Manitoba Law Reform Commission has noted that franchising is a growing and relatively unregulated field of business activity; there has been occasional media attention focusing on the inequality between franchisors and franchisees and recently, on alleged franchising frauds in Manitoba. 1 In recent years, three provinces and several countries have enacted new or revised franchise legislation.In January 2006, the Commission received a suggestion that a review of possible reforms to franchise law would be valuable in Manitoba, 2 and the Commission agreed to undertake the project. B. ScopeThis paper considers whether the regulation of franchises is desirable in Manitoba.It provides an introduction to the history and various models of franchising, an overview of existing franchise regulation in Canada and other countries and a comparison of the elements of Canadian legislative regimes.Finally, it asks whether franchise legislation is needed in Manitoba, and if so, what elements should be included in the legislation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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