Bibliographic record
Abstract
A traditional rule of chancery practice has been that only parties to an action are bound to obey any injunction granted as a remedy in the proceedings . However, non-parties are required to obey a court order that they are made aware of on pain of being cited for contempt in that they have either aided or abetted a named defendant, or have interfered and impeded the administration of justice. In this respect, Canadian courts demonstrate a more willing propensity than their United Kingdom counterparts to hold non-parties liable for contempt. This results in the loss of many procedural safeguards normally granted named defendants in any proceedings. In this paper, the author argues for caution in moving directly to hold non-parties liable for contempt and that a better approach would be to regularize the position of non-parties by bringing them into the proceeding through the use of either a representative defendant action, or, incorporation within the John and Jane Doe style of cause.
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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".