MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W103413524 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1507

"Are We There Yet?": Towards a New Rule for Choice of Law in Tort

2000· article· en· W103413524 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Janet Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyTortLawRelevance (law)Rule of lawSupreme courtContext (archaeology)DutyLegal certaintyPolitical scienceChoice of lawLaw and economicsEconomicsLiabilityConflict of lawsPhilosophyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court's effort to establish certainty in this area by basing a firm rule on a clear theory has failed. The intention was laudable but the proposed theory bore little relation to the courts' adjudicative concerns; and the rule sometimes produced injustice, prompting courts to circumvent it. This article considers the brief history of choice of law in tort and recent developments in common law and civil law jurisdictions, and suggests a new theory and a new rule (based on principles of tort law rather than public international law) which are likely to increase certainty by promoting fairness.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207