Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2006–7 / Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international privé en 2006–7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The plaintiff, a New Brunswick company, maintained aircraft engines and often sent engines to the United States to be repaired by the original manufacturer or other repair facilities. The plaintiff contracted with the first defendant, a Canadian logistics operator, to handle the customs clearances. The first defendant often subcontracted the work to the second defendant, a United States logistics operator. When the plaintiff, under pressure from United States authorities, undertook a review of its compliance with United States customs laws, the defendants (so the plaintiff alleged) failed to provide sufficient or timely assistance, a default for which the plaintiff sued them in British Columbia. The first defendant was registered as an extraprovincial corporation in British Columbia, and so had appointed an agent for service there, but the second defendant applied to have the claim against it dismissed on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction. Jurisdiction depended on whether the claim had a real and substantial connection with the province as required by section 3(e) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 28. The chambers judge held that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring its claim with one or other of the categories of presumed real and substantial connection in section 10 of the act.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".