Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on public institutions' ability to sue in defamation. It has a descriptive and a normative section. The descriptive part begins with an analysis of the relevant law in several common law jurisdictions. The state of Canadian law is then examined. The normative section considers which public institutions should be prohibited from suing in defamation and why Whereas some case law suggests that a prohibition on public institution defamation actions should be grounded in the public importance of speech about such institutions, this article takes the position that that is unprincipled. Instead, the focus is on factors such as the nature of an institution s reputation and the dangers of public institutions having an enforceable right to be well thought of. It is argued that a prohibition on a broad range of public institutions is justifiable, and the merits are considered of a rule that would deny standing to sue to all institutions subject to access to information law.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".