MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ambush Marketing and Brand Protection

2021· book· en· W4410785621 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

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAdvertisingAmbush marketingMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This book examines ambush marketing by defining it as any attempt to create an unauthorised or false association with an event, thereby infringing the contractual rights of official sponsors. It analyses traditional intellectual property rights—trade marks, copyright, and designs—as they apply to sporting events in the United Kingdom and European Union. The book scrutinises event-specific legislation, including the Olympic and Commonwealth Games frameworks, and incorporates recent reforms such as the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. It considers intrusion-based controls against fly-posting, street trading, billboards, and aerial advertising to prevent unauthorised promotion. Finally, it compares detailed laws in Australia’s three new major-events statutes, Canada’s overhaul of trade mark, design, and copyright law, New Zealand’s and South Africa’s legal regimes, and United States regulations to provide comprehensive, practitioner-focused guidance with a global perspective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0060.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207