MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810719757

CIVIL JURY TRIALS - ASSESSING NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES - CIVIL JURY REFORM

2002· article· en· W2810719757 on OpenAlex
John C Bouck

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJury Decision Making Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuryLawDamagesPolitical scienceSupreme courtJury trialCivil procedureDutyEconomic JusticePrivilege (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreman v. Foster presents an opportunity to examine the modern history of civil juries and their awards for non pecuniary damages in the courts of England, the United States of America, British Columbia, Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada. Trial by a civil jury is not just a right possessed by all litigants in a common law action . Like the right to vote, it is also a democratic privilege giving eligible citizens the right to insist on participating as jurors from time to time. No political voice champions the cause of trial by a civil jury. Few Canadian academics write about its strengths and its weaknesses. Because of procedural antiquity, it is used less frequently. Unless judges and lawyers join together and update its operation, soon it will disappear from the legal landscape. Judges and lawyers carry the duty to preserve and modernize the civil justice system for the public's benefit.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.243 · 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