Admiralty Jurisdiction of Canadian Federal Courts: A Circuitous Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the decision of Quebec North Shore Paper v. C.P. Ltd., in almost every case on the admiralty jurisdiction of the Canadian Federal Court two questions are invariably asked to determine the court’s jurisdiction: 1) whether there is a valid grant of jurisdiction and, if so, 2) whether there is substantive law to dispose of the matter at hand. In other words, to determine the preliminary question of jurisdiction, it is not enough that Parliament granted the Federal Court jurisdiction on a matter falling under ‘navigation and shipping,’ there must also be an existing federal law, whether under a statute, regulation, or common law, to decide the matter in dispute. However, in the search for existing federal law, the courts refer to various provisions related to jurisdiction in the Admiralty Acts and Federal Courts Act. This is a circuitous approach. In other words, to establish jurisdiction, there must be some existing federal law; and to determine the existing federal law, the courts look into the ambit of Canadian maritime law in the light of the Exchequer Court’s, or Federal Court’s, historical admiralty jurisdiction.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".