The Devil Is in the Scale: Revisiting the Commonality Requirement in Charter Class Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even a cursory look at the literature reveals scant agreement among experts on the future of Charter class actions. In no small part, this uncertainty can be attributed to the divergent views among the courts concerning the proper contours of the commonality threshold for aggregate Charter proceedings. While the doctrinal narrative of Thorburn suggests that Charter rights are individual in nature and, thus, are not easily amenable to collective redress, the counter-narrative delivered by Good posits that in order for a Charter class action to pass the commonality hurdle of certification “it does not have to resolve all issues that may exist in terms of establishing liability.” Although it is easy to see Thorburn and Good as thesis and antithesis, the subsequent Charter class actions such as Murray can hardly be portrayed as a synthesis. Hence, uncertainty over the commonality standard reigns. Taking these observations as its guiding thread, this paper makes a case for revisiting the commonality requirement in Charter class actions and argues that over-individualization of Charter rights that has been imputed into the analysis by Thorburn is unjustified on both descriptive and normative levels. Descriptively, such “over-individualization” is misguided because it semantically overpowers the analysis which, if properly conducted, would often reveal either no need for individual fact-finding at all or the possibility to follow the resolution of common issues with individual mini-trials. Normatively, over-reliance on individualized inquiries as part of the commonality analysis is misguided because it misconstrues the very nature of the class action regime.
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 | 0.038 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".