MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375831770 · doi:10.47348/tsar/2023/i2a5

A cause of action raising a triable issue in a class action: reconsidering the certification threshold

2023· article· af· W4375831770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theo Broodryk

Bibliographic record

VenueTydskrif vir die suid-afrikaanse reg · 2023
Typearticle
Languageaf
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Children’s Resource Centre Trust v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd (2013 2 SA 213 (HHA)) het ar Wallis verskeie vereistes vir sertifisering van ’n groepsgeding neergelê. Hierdie vereistes is later deur die konstitusionele hof tot blote faktore gerelegeer wat oorweeg moet word onder die hoofoorweging van die belang van geregtigheid. Een van die sertifiseringsfaktore is dat daar ’n eisoorsaak moet bestaan wat ’n beregbare kwessie openbaar. Appèlregter Wallis het bevind dat die toets wat van toepassing is om te bepaal of ’n pleitstuk eksipiabel is, gebruik moet word om te bepaal of daar wel so ’n eisoorsaak teenwoordig is. Die doel met hierdie artikel is om die benadering van die Suid-Afrikaanse hoër howe te evalueer om te bepaal of daar in die betrokke sertifiseringsaangeleenthede aan die bostaande faktor voldoen is en om sekere voorstelle te maak aangaande die manier waarop ons howe in die toekoms verkieslik met hierdie kwessie moet omgaan. Die uitspraak van r Unterhalter in De Bruyn v Steinhoff International Holdings NV (2022 1 SA 442 (GJ)) vorm die grondslag van die artikel. Die benadering van die prominente buitelandse jurisdiksie van Ontario in Kanada word ook in die artikel oorweeg. Uiteindelik word in die artikel geargumenteer ten gunste van die handhawing van ’n minder streng benadering om te bepaal of ’n eisoorsaak ’n beregbare kwessie openbaar. Eksepsies behoort deur ’n verweerder geopper te word vir oorweging deur die verhoorhof na die groepsgeding van stapel gestuur is. Die sertifiseringshof behoort bloot te bepaal of dit duidelik en voor die hand liggend is dat die eisoorsaak onhoudbaar is. Indien wel, is sertifisering onwaarskynlik omdat dit nie sou sin maak om ’n groepsgeding in sulke omstandighede te sertifiseer nie, ongeag of daar aan die ander sertifiseringsfaktore voldoen is. Maar, waar die houdbaarheid van die eisoorsaak onduidelik is, behoort dié faktor ten gunste van sertifisering te werk, met die verhoorhof wat later kan bepaal of die eisoorsaak eksipiabel is.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.029
Scholarly communication0.0260.026
Open science0.0050.021
Research integrity0.0370.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.004

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.073 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTydskrif vir die suid-afrikaanse regSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207