Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper traces the Canadian doctrine of unconscionability’s distant voyage in Uber Technologies v Heller 2020 SCC 16 from the familiar waters of the English ‘unconscionable bargains’ family of doctrines, found in various common law jurisdictions. Since the 19th century, those jurisdictions had included Canada. However, in this important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the position of the doctrine shifted significantly. Its movement can be identified as towards the American doctrine of unconscionability, a distinct doctrine not part of the English family, based rather on §2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Court-watchers in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions wondering whether this reinterpretation of unconscionability might represent a model for progressive reform should understand why it does not. Adrift between two doctrines with different purposes, it is insufficiently suited to serve either. Meanwhile, it may disrupt business reliance on standard form contracts, and cause tremendous contractual instability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".