MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488742593

The Public Safety Exception to Solicitor-Client Privilege: Smith v. Jones

2000· article· en· W1488742593 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam M. Dodek

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtPrivilege (computing)LawTortPolitical scienceDutySupreme Court DecisionsLiability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case comment reviews and analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 case on solicitor-client privilege known under the pseudonym Smith v. Jones. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized a public safety exception to this privilege in cases of clear, serious and imminent danger. In so doing, the Canadian Court drew upon the California Supreme Court's Tarasoff decision imposing a duty to warn in tort on doctors regarding dangerous patients. The case comment reveals numerous problematic aspects to the Supreme Court's decision and concludes that it raises more questions than it answers.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.355 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207