MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377249299 · doi:10.5040/9781509959563.ch-008

Perspectives from the United States and Canada

2023· book-chapter· en· W4377249299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geneviève Saumier, Linda Silberman

Bibliographic record

VenueHart Publishing eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory of the United StatesPolitical scienceGeographyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This joint contribution on Canada and the United States examines how these two States deal with cross-border recognition and enforcement of civil judgments. This collaboration made sense to the authors given that these jurisdictions have a long history of recognising each other’s judgments and exhibit similar openness to judgments from other countries. A comparative consideration of each country’s perspectives on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention was expected to yield interesting insights for readers from Canada and the United States, but also for those less familiar with the intricacies of recognition and enforcement law in these two countries. As the United States and Canada both have a federal system and share, for the most part, a common law tradition, one might think that the two countries would share similar perspectives about the Convention. But, as we will explain further, the views about the recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments in the two countries present significant differences. The two countries do have generous and substantially similar regimes for recognising and enforcing foreign country judgments, but the concerns about the recognition and enforcement of their own judgments abroad are somewhat different. This contribution will explore those issues and conclude on a cautiously optimistic note on the prospects for ratification of the Convention for both countries. Even though the Convention will enter into force on 1 September 2023 as a result of ratifications by the European Union (EU) and Ukraine on 29 July 2022, patience may be the key with respect to ratifications by the United States and Canada. The chapter is structured to provide the perspective of both countries in relation to outgoing judgments (section II), incoming judgments (section III) and the treaty ratification and implementation process (section IV). In so doing, it will consider the history and current landscape in both countries and will discuss specific provisions of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention that may raise questions in one or both countries.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0340.013
Scholarly communication0.0180.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueHart Publishing eBooksSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207