Bibliographic record
Abstract
Now in its eighth edition, The Civil Litigation Process: Cases and Materials remains Canada's leading casebook on civil procedure. The new edition reflects recent developments in the law and embodies changes in the evolving approach to the teaching and learning of procedural law in Canadian classrooms.\nWhile the basic structure of the book has not changed, the authors have updated numerous topics and materials — including Indigenous dispute resolution, constitutional rights to legal services, expert witness, and national class actions — and have made adjustments to the focus and sequence of the topics of continuing interest.\nThe eighth edition is organized into 12 chapters — mindful of the need to keep the text manageable and user-friendly within the time constraints of the standard Canadian law school semester. The authors have condensed each excerpt and each section of notes and questions.\nThe Civil Litigation Process, 8th Edition is truly national in scope, referring to cases and rules from all common-law provinces. It draws on the strong tradition of teachers and scholars of procedural law in Canada, with an author team of specialists from across the country: Janet Walker (general editor), Jane Bailey, Barbara Billingsley, David A. Crerar, and Erik S. Knutsen. Their collaborative efforts throughout the developmental process have resulted in a comprehensive, efficient, and exceptionally teachable resource.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.047 |
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".