Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization gets the credit and the blame for many things, and one of these is the increasing amount of civil and commercial litigation in Canada that involves factual connections to more than one country or province. Our courts see the disputes generated by a higher volume of cross-border transactions and operations. These raise questions of private international law, and one of the most important of these is whether the court chosen by the plaintiff has jurisdiction to resolve the matter.Accordingly, it is timely that the Law Commission of Ontario has decided to issue a Consultation Paper examining the exercise of jurisdiction by Ontario courts in civil cases. The Paper is by Janet Walker, a leading Canadian private international law scholar, with input from a working group of other scholars in the field. The Paper was issued in early March 2009 and the period for comments was open until April 13, 2009. The Law Commission plans to prepare a formal report setting out its recommendations for legislative action. It also contemplates issuing further consultation papers on other aspects of cross-border litigation, such as proof of foreign law and enforcement of foreign judgments.This comment focuses on some of the more central issues raised in the Paper. Jurisdiction is a broad topic and reforming it is a huge undertaking, so any response must of necessity be selective. This comment also appreciates that the Paper, as befits its role, raises some issues without taking a position on them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".