Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research I have focused on the principles and the changes of paradigm in actions claiming damages for the psychiatric injury in the Law of Torts in English Commonwealth countries such as England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Early claims for mental injury were unsuccessful, but soon afterwards this strict view came to be modified. Claims for the psychiatric injury are seen as posing their own special problems of policy, and certainly the courts treat them differently from the claims for physical injury. The duty to take care to avoid causing psychiatric harm frequently is hedged by various limitations beyond the mere requirement that the harm is foreseeable. Firstly, mere upset, grief or distress does not give rise to any cause of action. Only the persons who have suffered actual psychiatric injury can bring an action. Secondly, in the case of secondary victims, by reference to additional requirements for liability over and above mere foreseeability of the harm; ⅰ)Relationship with the accident victim, ⅱ)Proximity in time and space, ⅲ)Sudden injury. I find it would be more appropriate that the principles in actions claiming damages for psychiatric injury in the Law of Torts in English Commonwealth countries could be considered in our courts.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".