A Further Note on Final Note: The Scope and Limits of Judicial Law Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Friedmann Equity Development Inc. v. Final Note Ltd., no one seemed to know what the function of the sealed contract rule was. The rule had been the subject of both judicial and academic criticism. The critics called it "curious'', "technical", "anomalous", a "dead letter", and "a shell at best". Remarkably, in the face of such epithets, the court in Final Note turned down an invitation to abolish the rule. It asserted that the rule does serve a useful purpose after all and went on to state the case for retaining it. This is the substantive aspect of the court's decision. In any event, the court said, even if there were no case for retaining the rule, its abolition would be a matter for the legislature not the court. This is the institutional aspect of the court's decision. The Hall paper is critical of both the substantive aspect and the institutional aspect. We agree. This paper presents our further thoughts on the matter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".