"Academic Concerns" - Caring about Conversation in Canadian Common Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its 2001 decision in Cooper v Hobart, refined the test in Canadian common law for establishing a duty of care in the tort of negligence. Although aware of the complexities and ongoing challenges of the “duty of care” concept, the Supreme Court openly labelled these concerns as “academic.” This article confirms these concerns as “academic,” but insists that this label underlines their centrality not only to an understanding of the tort of negligence but to the nature and form of common law reasoning. By pointing to errors in the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment—errors of using the wrong word, naming the wrong judge, confusing the structure of the duty of care inquiry, and omitting an important precedent case—the authors identify failures in the four principal activities of the common law: placing, naming, identifying, and remembering. They suggest that the image, sounds, and fluctuation of “conversation” capture the method of common law—its linking of past to future through imperfect yet evocative analogical reasoning—and affirm the importance of paying attention to the meaning of words, the names of judges, the structure of questions, and the importance of history. La Cour suprême du Canada, dans l'arrêt Cooper c Hobart prononcé en 2001, a raffiné le critère de la common law canadienne pour établir une obligation de diligence relativement à la responsabilité délictuelle et à la négligence. Quoique bien au fait de la complexité et des contestations relatives au concept de l'obligation de diligence, la Cour suprême a clairement qualifié ces questions de « théoriques ». Cet article confirme que ces questions sont théoriques, mais insiste sur le fait que ce qualificatif souligne qu'il s'agit de questions fondamentales non seulement pour comprendre la faute de négligence, mais également la nature et la forme du raisonnement de la common law. Les auteurs, en soulignant les erreurs dans l'arrêt de la Cour suprême du Canada—mauvaise terminologie, erreurs sur le nom du juge, confusion quant à la structure de l’examen visant à déterminer s’il existe une obligation de diligence et omission d'un précédent important—relèvent des manquements aux quatre activités principales de la common law: situer, nommer, identifier et se souvenir. Ils avancent que l'image, les sons et les fluctuations de la « conversation » reflètent la méthodologie de la common law—le fait qu'elle établit des liens entre le passé et le futur en faisant appel à un raisonnement analogique imparfait, mais évocateur—et affirment l'importance de porter attention à la signification des mots, au nom des juges, à la structure de l'examen et à l'importance de l’histoire.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.108 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".