Pierringer Settlement Agreements: Proceeding with Eyes Wide Open
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pierringer Agreements are a form of proportionate share settlement agreements. Under Pierringer Agreements plaintiffs settle with some defendants and continue the litigation against the non-settling defendants. The agreement severs joint liability between settling and non-settling defendants. Non-settling defendants are only liable for their proportionate share of the plaintiffs’ loss. Under- or over-settlements may be inevitable. Under the current Canadian approach, plaintiffs bear the risk of under-settlement but the benefit of over-settlement accrues to non-settling defendants. This is unfair because non-settling defendants bear no risk for under-settlement. The potential under-compensation that is a detriment to plaintiffs justifies retaining excess settlements similar to the private insurance exception to the compensation principle. This avoids incentivizing non-settling defendants and furthers the public interest in promoting settlements.
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 | 0.020 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.022 |
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".