MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W123683803

Social Host Liability: A Logical Extension of Commercial Host Liability?

2002· article· en· W123683803 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityStrict liabilityBusinessDuty of careLawLaw and economicsLegal liabilityLiability insuranceEconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores whether social host liability should be recognized in Canada. There appears to be some reluctance to acknowledge social host liability. Although this may be a reflection of collective welfarism, it is inconsistent with negligence law generally and also a disincentive for accident prevention.There is no reason for social hosts to enjoy immunity from liability where they have failed to do what a reasonable person ought to have done in similar circumstances to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Profitability, which has traditionally been used to justify the imposition of liability on commercial hosts and not social hosts, is best considered in determining the appropriate standard of care and not the existence of a duty of care. The author examines decisions on social host liability; arguing that liability has not been imposed, not because it would be inconsistent with Canadian law, but because of failure to establish some essential requirements for negligence liability in the circumstances.Social host liability is a logical extension of commercial host liability; brings the law in line with negligence law generally, and encourages socially responsible behaviour on the part of social hosts.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.027
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207