MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227516896 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1138

Peoples, BCE, and the Good Corporate "Citizen"

2009· article· en· W2227516896 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Edward J. Waitzer, Johnny Jaswal

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtExpansiveCorporationLawDeferenceStatutory lawDiscretionLegislatureCorporate lawShareholderCorporate titlePolitical scienceCorporate governanceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the use of various legal instruments to advance a more expansive but well-defined view of directors' duties and discretion--a view which focuses on the longer-term interests of the corporation. We begin with an attempt to clarify the nature of directors' statutory duties under Canadian corporate law. We then consider the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise and BCE v. 1976 Debentureholders, in which the Court took a broad view of corporate purpose, but failed to provide clear logic or operational guidance as to consequential directorial responsibilities. As a result, the Court may have afforded directors increased deference, provided they comply with prescribed procedural steps, but without a clearly stated legal rationale. We then outline various legal theories that courts might consider help advance and clarify some of the concepts averted to by the Supreme Court and discuss opportunities for complementary legislative or shareholder-initiated reform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.042
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207