Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States forum non conveniens doctrine refers to the discretionary power of the court to decline jurisdiction when the convenience of the parties would be better served if the action was brought and tried in another forum. It is a flexible doctrine in that the ultimate resolution will depend of the particular facts of each case. The two-pronged United States forum non conveniens analysis places the burden of proof on the defendant to show the “availability” and “adequacy” of an alternate forum, and that the balance of relevant private and public interest factors favors dismissal. Such an analysis applied to the facts as found by the court in the Cambior decision reveals both the availability and adequacy of Guyana as an alternate forum. The available remedies to the plaintiff, although less extensive, would not be sufficient to find Guyana inadequate, nor would differences in procedural law between the two jurisdictions. Upon comparison with the Union Carbide case, it is apparent that private and public interest factors in Cambior are better served in Guyana. Thus, in light of Union Carbide, it seems that where Cambior first lodged in the United States, it would have been dismissed in favor of Guyana.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.030 |
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".