MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609267695 · doi:10.29173/alr480

Bill C-45 and the Canadian Petroleum Industry

2005· article· en· W2609267695 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Norm Keith, James Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsManning Diversified Forest Products (Canada)Toronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal codeDutyStatuteIndemnityLawMens reaDuty of careBusinessStrict liabilityCriminal lawLiabilityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines Bill C-45 and its possible impact on the Canadian Petroleum Industry. Bill C- 45, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, establishes a new occupational health and safety (OHS) duty in the Criminal Code. If the duty is breached, either by individuals or organizations, it may result in a criminal charge of occupational health and safety criminal negligence. Bill C-45 also changes the means by which organizations, including corporations, are held liable for offences under the Criminal Code. The "identification theory" of corporate criminal liability has now been replaced by two provisions in the Criminal Code to address the criminal liability of organizations. The first provision, which deals with offences such as the new OHS criminal negligence offence, requires proof of negligence. The second deals with a more classic objective fault element or mens rea. The Canadian petroleum industry, especially in Alberta, has often relied upon outsourcing, contract provisions and structuring of relationships to minimize OHS legal liability under applicable OHS statutes. However, there is no legal basis to contract out of the Criminal Code. It is more important than ever to emphasize proper contract language, indemnity provisions and OHS management systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicRegulation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207