MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804163518 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3259

Residual Discretion: The Concept of Forum of Necessity under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act

2018· article· en· W2804163518 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Sobkin

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionPlaintiffLawDiscretionCompetence (human resources)StatuteInherent powersPolitical scienceExclusive jurisdictionScope (computer science)Personal jurisdictionConstitutionEconomicsComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under section 6 of the CJPTA, a court may hear a case for which it lacks territorial competence under the statute if it is satisfied that: (1) there is no other court outside the province in which the plaintiff can commence the proceeding; or (2) the commencement of the proceeding outside the province cannot reasonably be required. Courts in provinces that have not enacted the CJPTA have grafted a similar discretion on to the common law rules of jurisdiction. This article seeks to determine the intentions of the drafters of the CJPTA in providing for this power and to discuss how courts have attempted to define its scope so as not to subvert the basic approach to territorial competence taken in the CJPTA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207