A Bit of an Ending: The <i>Bre‐X</i> Litigation, Class Actions and the Liability of Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of suing professionals — lawyers, brokers, accountants — appears to make good financial sense. It seems fiscally sensible because, while an offender may melt into the night, take up residence in a foreign haven or otherwise dissipate his assets, established professionals usually have sufficient property at their disposal to make their pursuit through the civil court economically prudent. Shareholders in the Bre‐X affair sought, through a class action, to hold analysts and stockbrokers accountable for losses sustained when the price of Bre‐X shares suddenly collapsed in 1997. A decision in late November 1999 not to appeal a ruling of an Ontario Superior Court signals but a tiny ending to a messy multi‐million‐dollar scandal and to the quest to attach responsibility to a group of professionals. It is a tiny ending because it was the individualistic character of the legal issues in the context of the exigencies of the Ontario legislation, rather than the merits of the underlying claim, that foreclosed this attempt to hold professionals liable for financial losses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".