MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527691255 · doi:10.29173/alr433

Toward Tort Liability for Bad Samaritans

2016· article· en· W2527691255 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Allen M. Linden

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortLawLiabilityStrict liabilityDelictDeclarationPolitical sciencePunishment (psychology)Common lawJoint and several liabilityPrivate lawPublic lawPsychologyBlack letter lawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good Samaritan laws are common throughout Canada and the United States. The rationalefor the development of Good Samaritans law has been that the benefit of immunity for GoodSamaritans is more altruistic than the punishment of liability for Bad Samaritans. However,our tort law’s declaration that one need not assist one in danger weakens the moral statureof our law. Our law supports those who do the right thing and denounces those who do thewrong thing. The intrusiveness of liability for bystanders is usually argued against BadSamaritan laws. However potential liability is rare; the moral stature of our law is worththe effort to resolve this issue.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207