Who Can Be Examined for Discovery: The Evolution of Rule 200(1) and its Application Under the Proposed Rules of Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the evolution of r. 200(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court, beginning with the first formulation of r. 200(1) in the 1914 Alberta Rules of Court and culminating in its draft form in the Alberta Rules of Court: Test Draft 3. Rule 200(1) allows a party to examine for discovery the employees, former employees, and corporate representative of an opposing party in such circumstances where they have knowledge of the issues between the parties by nature of their employment, without obtaining an order to do so. This article focuses on the present application and interpretation of r. 200(1) by examining the impact of two critical cases on the Rule. Then, the authors undertake a comparison of the present form of the Rule and the new form it will take under the Proposed Alberta Rules of Court. The authors conclude that the proposed Rule contradicts the broad and purposive approach that has been taken to the present Rule by reinstating an additional "best informed" test and adding three additional criteria.
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 | 0.046 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".