MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2300938337 · doi:10.59962/9780774817349-006

Power, Discretion, and Vulnerability: Justice Wilson and Fiduciary Duty in the Corporate/Commercial Context

2010· book-chapter· en· W2300938337 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janis Sarra

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciaryLawDutySupreme courtDissenting opinionObligationEconomic JusticePolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Power (physics)DiscretionCorporate lawCommon lawSociologyLaw and economicsBusinessCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman appointed to an appellate court in Canada and the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, recognized at the outset of her judicial tenure that the law develops incrementally with measured and balanced response to changing social norms. She found a number of commercial law principles fundamentally sound and was not persuaded of a need for a change when viewed from the perspective of gender. Yet where Justice Wilson concluded that commercial law was in need of adjustment, she did not hesitate to express her opinions, whether writing fro the court, or in a dissenting judgment.This chapter deals with two aspects of her contribution. First, development of the concept of fiduciary obligation in the corporate and commercial context, and the need for an equitable remedy where such obligations are breached. Justice Wilson's approach was novel as it recognized that, beyond the historically defined categories of fiduciary relationships, other circumstances may also give rise to fiduciary obligations without creating broad new categories. Her approach also acknowledged the importance of drawing out broad principles in respect of power and vulnerability and applying them to areas of law one might not have intuitively considered. The second aspect of her contribution to be examined is her recognition of the court's signalling role in development of corporate commercial law through the exercise of its leave powers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.035
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks→Same topicLegal principles and applications→French-language works237,207→