MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548195955

Before You Host a Party Read This: Social Host Liability and the Decision in Childs v. Desormeaux

2006· article· en· W1548195955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityHarmGovernment (linguistics)AutonomyAssertionDutyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsDuty of careLawDuty to protectBusinessSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent cases in Canada dealing with the legal liability of social hosts for the harm caused to third parties by their intoxicated guests have created an increasingly polemical public debate. In this Comment, the author argues that while the decision in Childs is supported by the particular facts of the case, the underlying reasoning is deeply problematic. First, the distinction the Court makes between commercial and social hosts is exaggerated, and that the differences that do exist should influence the standard of care required of social hosts rather than the existence of a duty. Second, the suggestion in Childs that social host liability will impose an inordinate burden on social hosts is simply not true. Finally, the assertion that social host liability will intrude on a guest's individual autonomy and personal choice, or diminish their individual responsibility, is deeply problematic. Such a claim invokes the decontextualized and individualized language of neo-liberalism to deal with an issue that government and non-government organizations alike treat as involving both individual and community responsibility.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207