MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124516724

Death to Semelhago

2016· article· pt· W3124516724 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bruce Ziff

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie law journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtJurisprudenceDamagesLawEconomic JusticePolitical sciencePhilosophyCommon lawHumanitiesSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1996 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, Justice John Sopinka stated that it is no longer appropriate to assume that specific performance will issue as a matter of course to enforce a contract for the sale of land. Before performance will be ordered, it must be proven (and not assumed) that common law damages for breach of contract will not suffice to do justice. In this article, Semelhago and the case law generated in its aftermath will be reviewed, and the policy arguments pertaining to the current law addressed. In short, it will be argued that the Semelhago dictum should be rejected. Dans l’arret Semelhago c. Paramadevan de 1996 de la Cour supreme du Canada, le juge John Sopinka affirmait qu’il ne convient plus de presumer que l’execution integrale d’un contrat pour la vente d’un bien immeuble sera accordee automatiquement. Avant que l’execution soit ordonnee, il doit etre demontre (et non presume) que des dommages-interets accordes en vertu de la common law pour la rupture du contrat constitueront une reparation inadequate. Dans cet article, l’arret Semelhago et la jurisprudence qui l’a suivi sont passes en revue, et les considerations de principe relatives a la loi actuelle sont examinees. Tout compte fait, l’auteur allegue que l’obiter de Semelhago doit etre rejete.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalhousie law journalSame topicProperty Rights and Legal DoctrineFrench-language works237,207