Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, a model statute on the taking and transferring of jurisdiction in civil matters, is currently in force in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia and is likely to come into force in other Canadian provinces in the future. Section 11 of the CJPTA deals with the staying of proceedings. At common law, such stays were ordered under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Recently the Supreme Court of Canada has held that section 11 codifies, rather than alters, the common law approach. However, section 11 uses language that is in several respects different from the leading jurisprudential explanations of forum non conveniens. As a result, different approaches have emerged. In some cases, judges have focused primarily on the common law jurisprudence and paid only minimal attention to the wording of section 11. In other cases, judges have attempted to integrate, in different ways, the analysis called for by the statutory provision with the earlier common law approach. Section 11 illustrates many of the challenges in codifying well-understood common law doctrines.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".