MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999405832

COMPUTER PROGRAMS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION IN CANADA AND INDIA

2010· article· en· W6999405832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyData Protection Act 1998Computer programPoint (geometry)Computer technologyComputer software
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he thesis considers the legal protection of computer programs in Canada and India. The research traces the development of protection of computer programs in Canada and India as these jurisdictions have taken divergent approaches to protect computer programs. It further studies the current legal approach adopted by the Canadian and Indian courts to combat the problem relating to protection of computer programs and it analyzes whether copyrights are an appropriate legal protection for computer programs from the point of view of computer program developers and consumers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0140.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicHealthcare RegulationFrench-language works237,207