Additional Compensation to Representative Plaintiffs in Ontario: Conceptual, Empirical and Comparative Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2014 Ontario’s class action regime turned 21; and several months before this important milestone the Law Commission of Ontario initiated a review of the operation of this regime. It is therefore a perfect time for commentators to make a meaningful contribution to the country’s class action and access to justice jurisprudence by providing scholarly reviews of some of the more important and/or challenging dimensions of the way this regime has operated over the last 21 years. These contributions are even more desirable (if not essential) in those areas of class action practice that have, to date, been largely ignored by scholars and commentators despite the fact that they raise important practical and conceptual issues and have an impact on the ability of this class action regime to attain the crucial aims of access to justice, judicial economy and behaviour modification that it was designed to secure. The aim of this article is to provide an empirical, conceptual and comparative study of one such issue, namely, whether and to what extent persons who file class action proceedings in Ontario, on behalf of similarly situated claimants, should receive additional compensation if a successful outcome is secured for these claimants.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".