Of Neighbours and Netizens, Or, Duty of Care in the Tech Age: A Comment on Cooper v. Hobart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focal point of this comment will be the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Cooper v. Hobart, which appears to have made some significant changes to the elements of ‘‘duty of care’’, the foundational negligence concept. The Court framed its decision as refining duty of care analysis in order to properly deal with ‘‘novel claims’’ (i.e., those for which there is not an established or analogous duty of care in the existing case law). Given that the growth of elec- tronic commerce and Internet usage continues to spawn ‘‘novel’’ legal issues, Cooper is an appropriate starting point for a discussion of whether the law, as it stands, provides courts with the tools to determine when and where new duties of care should arise.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".