Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of expanding international trade, it is increasingly likely that politicians, courts and tribunals will wrestle with whether punitive damages are appropriate in transnational disputes, and whether countries that traditionally do no allow exemplary relief should recognize and enforce foreign awards of such damages. Furthermore, by seeing how different systems address these problems, we can gain a deeper understanding of the role of punitive damages in our own legal system and be better able to deal with punitive damages issues in the international arena. This Article undertakes a thorough comparative study of punitive damages in common law countries. It examines the laws of England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States to determine whether there exists a consensus on the availability of punitive damages. The Article finds that, despite the controversy over the appropriateness of punitive damages, they are widely available in these countries and claims for such damages have increased in recent years. It also finds, however, that there is little consensus on the factors that are used to determine the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded. Some jurisdictions provide little or no guidance to the judge or jury who sets the award. Others provide a detailed list of factors, and one country even provides damages brackets to guide the decision maker in fixing the amount of punitive damages. The Article concludes that all countries have taken steps to rein in unreasonably large punitive damages awards. Those steps vary greatly from country to country, as do the standards for determining what constitutes an excessive award.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".