MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082703557 · doi:10.1080/0964906032000086232

Third party liability for child abuse: unanswered questions

2003· article· en· W2082703557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol Brennan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Welfare and Family Law · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVicarious liabilityLiabilityTortSupreme courtLawJurisprudenceThird partyChild abuseStrict liabilityPolitical scienceSociologyPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Tort litigation in respect of child abuse has moved towards the increased imposition of third party liability. This trend has been enhanced by the House of Lords decision in Lister v. Hesley Hall which reconsidered the ‘Salmond criteria’ for vicarious liability for intentional torts in the light of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada. In English courts, judicial reasoning in this area has been driven predominantly by legal principle rather than by policy considerations. Until the latter are articulated, the reality behind, and the implications for practice of, the trend towards third party liability for child abuse cannot be fully understood.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social Welfare and Family LawSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207