Toeing the Line: Arbitrators with Expert Knowledge [Xerox Canada Ltd. v. MPI Technologies Inc]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Xerox Canada Ltd v. MPI Technologies Inc, Justice C.L. Campbell rejected a challenge to the ward of a three-person arbitral panel. The plaintiff, Xerox Canada, had alleged that one of the arbitrators, who had expert knowledge of some of the complex technical evidence that was at the core of the dispute, had crossed the line and acted in a non-judicial manner, contrary to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law). The decision is important for its review of, and support for, the manner in which the panel both utilized the knowledge of the expert arbitrator and observed its responsibilities to the parties in so doing. It is contended that the panel's behaviour represents a model of its kind.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".