Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Columbia’s Apology Act, the first of its kind in Canada, is a law reform initiative intended to promote and protect statements of sympathy or regret made in connection with any matter. It achieves this by: making apologies inadmissible as evidence of fault or liability; barring use of an apology to confirm a cause of action so as to extend a limitation period; and preventing the impairment of insurance coverage that would be available but for the apology. The Apology Act is compared with Australian legislation upon which it was modeled and with ‘safe harbor’ legislation in various U.S. states that protects certain types of statements of sympathy or regret, typically those arising out of particular matters, such as accidents or medical malpractice. Unlike these models, the Apology Act protects such statements even if they expressly or impliedly admit fault, and does not limit protection to particular types of matters. The author responds to moral and sociological critiques of apology legislation and, in doing so, characterizes the Apology Act as enabling, rather than limiting, the making of apologies, as well as encouraging earlier settlements and alternative dispute resolution. Drawing on sociological and psychological research, the author defines in detail the requisite contents of an apology, identifies effects that even minor variations in those contents can have on an apology’s reception, and considers the relationship of apology legislation to the broader societal context within which it operates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".