MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160375458 · doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpaa196

Canadian Federal Court of Appeal Rules it can interpret contracts: rejects Goldilocks approach to jurisdiction  <i>Salt Canada Inc v Baker</i>, 2020 FCA 127, 28 July 2020

2020· article· en· W3160375458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emir Crowne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealJurisdictionGoldilocks principleLawFederal courtPolitical scienceTasteLaw and economicsEconomicsPsychologySupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal ruled that it can interpret contracts without resorting to the ‘Goldilocks approach to jurisdiction, taste-testing each case for the appropriate amount of federal flavour and asserting jurisdiction only in cases where the federal content is, in the personal opinion of a judge, “just right”.’

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.009
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0210.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & PracticeSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207