The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Conference’s Judgments and Jurisdiction Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) codifies the substantive law of jurisdiction in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan. One of the questions that may be posed by the future of the CJPTA is how the jurisdictional system that it enacts would function in relation to two potential international conventions that are contemplated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. One, a convention on the enforcement of judgments, is in an advanced stage of negotiation and may well be adopted by the Hague Conference. It deals with jurisdiction indirectly, by defining jurisdictional standards or “filters” that must be satisfied for civil and commercial judgments to be recognized under its rules. A remoter possibility, but expressly on the Conference’s agenda, is a further convention dealing with jurisdiction directly, potentially including acceptable standards of jurisdiction and dealing with issues of forum non conveniens (declining jurisdiction) and lis alibi pendens (parallel proceedings pursued concurrently in a foreign court). This article compares the CJPTA’s jurisdictional rules with those included as “filters” in the latest draft of the judgments convention in November 2017, and with those that might form part of a further convention to harmonize jurisdictional rules directly. It concludes that the CJPTA could operate without difficulty in relation to the proposed judgments convention and, very probably, an eventual jurisdiction convention, because its jurisdictional standards are, almost without exception, more liberal than those incorporated in the Hague models. The article also suggests that there is no reason to modify the CJPTA so as to bring it closer to the rules being developed in The Hague, since the CJPTA regulates jurisdiction, not just in international, but also in interprovincial cases, where different standards are appropriate.
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 | 0.028 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".