MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W193000733 · doi:10.29173/alr103

The Alberta Court of Appeal Opines on the S.E.F. No. 44 Limitation: The Status Quo and the Unresolved

2013· article· en· W193000733 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Geoffrey Duckworth

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsManning Diversified Forest Products (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealStatus quoAmbiguityLawDiscoverabilityStatus quo biasConsistency (knowledge bases)Political scienceLaw and economicsCourt decisionSettlement (finance)EconomicsPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The oft-criticized ambiguity of the Family Protection Endorsement S.E.F. No. 441 has resulted in another Alberta Court of Appeal decision which holds that there are, essentially, two triggers regarding the “discoverability” limitation in clause 6(c) of the endorsement. While the Court preserved the potential that some claims against insurers will be barred prior to settlement or judgment, the consistency of the approach reduces uncertainty about when the limitation period begins to run, minimizing the risk of precautionary claims against insurers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207