Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Crown has extensive powers and can sometimes cause injuries to those it governs through the use or misuse or these powers. Since there is no legislative scheme in place in Québec to create a specific regime for compensating these injured parties, the Crown is generally subject to the law of the land just like any other subject of the law. The separation of powers in Canada limits the power of the courts to review and evaluate Crown actions. The deference they must exercise in this review ensures that courts do not encroach on the legislative’s will to endow the Crown with its sovereign powers. This deference is relatively well understood in public law when it comes to declaring whether the use of these sovereign powers by the Crown was legal and within its mandate. The same principle of deference also applies to civil lawsuits in compensation. In Québec, the current form this deference takes is that the Crown is immune from normal rules of civil liability when it uses its core policy powers (such as regulatory powers), unless these powers were exercised in bad faith. This judicial scheme, however, appears unnecessary and needlessly complex. The definition of bad faith has been construed by the Supreme Court to include any action that would constitute a gross fault under the Québec civil law regime; in practice, the exercise of policy powers would command deference even if the standard was that of a simple fault. This means that the immunity only protects the Crown from injuries caused by the sort of action that it would not be liable for under the private law regime, making the immunity unnecessary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".