MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117032328

LA COMPÉTENCE INTERNATIONALE INDIRECTE ET LA SOUMISSION AU TRIBUNAL ÉTRANGER SELON LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA APRÈS L’ARRÊT BARER C KNIGHT BROTHERS

2019· article· fr· W3117032328 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gérald Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTTribunalJurisdictionSupreme courtLawPlaintiffPolitical scienceHumanitiesKnightPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author draws on the recognition of a foreign judgment in Quebec to contest the appropriateness of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Barer case, which placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff for establishing jurisdiction of a foreign court, contrary to the letter and spirit of art. 3155 CCQ. The author criticizes the majority opinion regarding the standard of submission to the foreign court, which rejects a theory that truly considers the defendant’s intention. He approves of the majority opinion’s finding that case law supports the use of discretionary power (art. 3164 CCQ) in connection with a rule of direct jurisdiction (art. 3168 CCQ).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207