Groepsgedingvoering - die voorstel van die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie vir die sertifisering van 'n groepsgeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In hierdie bydrae word die voorstelle van die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie vir die sertifisering van 'n groepsgeding bespreek. Sodanige voorstelle is die produk van 'n werkstuk en 'n verslag wat in onderskeidelik 1995 en 1998 gepubliseer is. In beide die dokumente word die promulgasie van wetgewing aanbeveel om 'n raamwerk daar te stel vir die regulering van groepsgedingvoering. Die bespreking van die voorstelle word toegelig met verwysing na die Class Proceedings Act van Ontario en die Federal Rules of Civil Procedure van die Verenigde State. Class actions - the proposal of the South African Law Commission for the certification thereof In this contribution the proposals of the South African Law Commission for the certification of a class action are discussed. These proposals are the products of a working paper and a report published in 1995 and 1998 respectively. In both these documents the Commission proposed the promulgation of legislation to provide the necessary framework to govern class actions. The proposals are discussed with reference to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (United States of America). (Journal for Juridical Science: 2003 28(1): 133-153)
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.024 |
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".