MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155743310

Student Suicide On-Campus: Tort Liability of Canadian Universities and Determining a Duty of Care

2021· article· en· W3155743310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shailaja Nadarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueAppeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortDutyDuty of careJurisprudenceLaggingLiabilityPolitical scienceLawPublic relationsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide is a devastating issue that is increasingly affecting post-secondary students across Canadian university campuses. Despite growing awareness of this problem, research shows that mental health supports for post-secondary students in Canada remain insufficient and inaccessible. This paper argues that the law is also lagging behind. Currently, no legal recourse exists to find universities civilly liable if students die by suicide, on- or off-campus. In an effort to address this lag, this paper examines the potential consequences of expanding the duty of care owed by universities to their students in tort law. This paper briefly maps the current legal terrain, both in terms of general duties of care that universities owe their students and jurisprudence related to suicide prevention, for example, in the contexts of jails and hospitals. The paper turns to American jurisprudence that has recognized a duty of care for universities to prevent student suicides and considers the potential costs and benefits, for universities and students alike, of adopting such a standard in Canada to create a new and expanded duty.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.354 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAppeal: Review of Current Law and Law ReformSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207