MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1461146254 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1119

Are National Class Actions Constitutional?: A Reply to Hogg and McKee

2010· article· en· W1461146254 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffJurisdictionConstitutionClass (philosophy)LawPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)Law and economicsCertificationClass actionForum shoppingSociologyBusinessComputer scienceState (computer science)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that there is no constitutional impediment to the certification of multijurisdictional class actions by provincial superior courts, and no constitutional requirement to confine plaintiff classes to those in which each claim has a real and substantial connection to the forum. Neither the text of the Constitution nor the constitutionally mandated rules of the conflict of laws restrict court jurisdiction in this way. Rather, the principles of order and fairness require Canadian courts to exercise jurisdiction over multi-jurisdictional class actions in a way that maximizes the objectives of class actions, and minimizes the incidence of overlapping classes and competing actions. This may require us to develop new institutional mechanisms and bodies to facilitate the process of coordinating national class actions to ensure that they meet these constitutional standards.

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 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 score0.977
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.235 · 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