MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946065876

Assessing Tort Damages in the Conflict of Laws: Loci, Fori, Illogical

2013· article· en· W2946065876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christina Porretta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunitive damagesDamagesTortLawJurisdictionPlaintiffChoice of lawConflict of lawsCommon lawDelictPolitical scienceBusinessLaw and economicsEconomicsPrivate lawLiabilityComparative lawBlack letter law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The task of determining which law to apply when quantifying a damages award in tort cases involving more than one jurisdiction is not an easy one. As multinational litigation becomes more common, choice of law principles are required to evolve in order to ensure that plaintiffs are properly compensated, and defendants protected from excessive damages awards. This paper considers the history of choice of law in tort with respect to the assessment of damages and recent developments in common law and civil law jurisdictions, and suggests a new framework with respect to the assessment of pecuniary, non-pecuniary, and punitive damages in Canada where a conflict of laws situation arises.

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)0.001
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 score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207