MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956128234 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1362

There Is a There There: Forum Selection Clauses, Consumer Protection and the Quasi-Constitutional Right to Privacy in Douez v. Facebook

2019· article· en· W2956128234 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Slane

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressStatutory lawContext (archaeology)Privacy policyInternet privacyConsumer protectionBusinessService providerSupreme courtPower (physics)Vulnerability (computing)Consumer privacyInformation privacyService (business)Political scienceLawComputer securityComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumer vulnerability in online transactions has been a prominent issue since the beginning of e-commerce and online service provider contracts, and indeed has continued to present significant concerns where consumers engage with any business model relying on digital platforms. With the majority decision in Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada has expanded consumer protection in the context of online contracts, with regard to any statutory privacy rights available to consumers in Canada. The decision takes an important further step towards constitutionalizing privacy, and securing means to redress power imbalances online.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.017
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0150.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207