MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201479641 · doi:10.29173/alr122

Force Majeure in Canadian Law

2011· article· en· W201479641 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael P Theroux, April D Grosse

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForce majeureCausationLawJurisprudenceBusinessLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Force majeure clauses are intended to allocate risk for future events that, if they occur, will affect the ability of one party to perform its obligations under the contract. This article undertakes a comprehensive review of the Canadian law of force majeure and its application in the energy sector. The article begins by examining the legal foundations of force majeure found in the common law, Canadian jurisprudence, and other legal regimes. It then describes the operation of a force majeure clause and analyzes how such a clause is likely to be interpreted by the courts. Along with analyzing specific aspects of force majeure, such as triggering events, foreseeability and control, and issues relating to impact and causation, the authors incorporate many practical suggestions that will be useful to drafters of force majeure clauses.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.173 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207