MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229064158

Enforcement of Non-Monetary Foreign Judgments in Australia

2008· article· en· W2229064158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim Pham

Bibliographic record

VenueANU Open Research (Australian National University) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementLawPolitical scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under Australian conflict of law rules, courts can enforce foreign judgments for a sum of money, but not judgments that order a party to do or not to do an action.The article argues that the rule against enforcement of non-monetary judgments is no longer relevant in the modern world.It begins by setting out the Australian law on enforcement of foreign judgments and identifying the policies underlying enforcement.It then uses the Canadian Supreme Court decision Pro Swing v Elta Golf, overturning the bar against enforcement of non-monetary judgments, to argue that the policies underlying enforcement of foreign judgments support the enforcement of non-monetary judgments, particularly in light of modern technological developments.Finally, it looks at some practical issues that may arise in enforcing non-monetary foreign judgments.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueANU Open Research (Australian National University)Same topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207