MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946947317 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3353

In Search Of Things Past And Future: Judicial Activism And Corporate Purpose

2018· article· en· W2946947317 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Edward J. Waitzer, Douglas Sarro

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationOppressionStakeholderCorporate lawIdeologyCorporate governanceLaw and economicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawSociologyBusinessPoliticsEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corporate purpose does not lend itself to any clear or constant definition. Rather, courts’ understanding of corporate purpose adapts over time to reflect evolving social norms and expectations as to the proper role of the corporation in society. We use the oppression remedy under Canadian corporate law to explore how Canadian courts have and will continue to play a key role in shifting legal and market understandings of corporate purpose towards a more long-termist, stakeholder-focused perspective. We begin by exploring the rationale for moving the law in this direction, outlining some of the causes and effects of short-term horizons on corporate and investment manager decision making, and how ideology and overly conservative legal advice contribute to this dynamic. We then outline an emerging role for judicial activism in breaking the log jam and helping us to re-focus on the real strength of capitalism—its flexibility to evolve and respond to a society’s expressed needs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.053
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207