MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194370719

LA NOTION DE DOMMAGE DANS LE CADRE DU DÉLIT DE NÉGLIGENCE (COMMON LAW) ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EXTRACONTRACTUELLE DU FAIT PERSONNEL (DROIT CIVIL) AU CANADA

2018· article· fr· W3194370719 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marel Katsivela

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortLawContext (archaeology)Common lawLegal liabilityCivil law (Civil law)Political scienceLiabilityPersonal injuryPublic lawGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to set out the principles governing the concept of injury in the context of extracontractual liability resulting from one’s personal acts under Quebec civil law and the common law tort of negligence in Canada. The author seeks to identify similarities and differences that govern this concept and to put forth suggestions on the legal status quo. While the applicable rules in this area only partially converge, the legal concerns remain by and large similar. Court findings are alike in some instances but differ in others. The comparative study of injury within the two legal cultures in Canada proves to be quite a field to discover!

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207