MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276896539

Consumer Arbitration in the Evolving Canadian Landscape

2009· article· en· W2276896539 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationLegislationSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceCompulsory arbitrationBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of consumer arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism of choice for business in North America' may be at risk, at least north of the border.In the three most populous Canadian provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, legislators and judges have declared clauses imposing arbitration unenforceable, preserving consumers' access to courts and, perhaps more significantly, access to class actions.In so doing, these jurisdictions stand in stark contrast to the Supreme Court of Canada, which recently extended its pro-arbitration posture from the commercial to the consumer law realm by enforcing an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract, thereby putting an end to the consumer's attempt to file a class action against the vendor.Absent the contrary provincial laws, this judgment would have signaled convergence between the U.S. and Canada on consumer arbitration,

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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