Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was held in Gougeon v. Peugeot Canada Ltee that the purchaser of a defective automobile could sue the manufacturer for damages, even though it appeared that there was no contract between the manufacturer and the ultimate purchaser. It is easy to see social reasons for supporting this result, but the legal basis of the judgments seemed rather inscrutable to most common law readers. It seemed unclear whether the result was based on contract or on delict, and, if based on contract, whether on the contract between the manufacturer and the dealer, or on the contract between the dealer and the purchaser, or on a contract between the manufacturer and the purchaser. The Gougeon case was approved and followed without discussion by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Kravitz v. General Motors Products of Canada Limited, but in the Supreme Court of Canada there was a careful examination and explanation of the theoretical basis for the result.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".