Collective Legal Mobilisation: Exploring Class Actions in Sweden and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a wide range of activities constitute legal mobilisation, a long-standing area of neglect in this research tradition has concerned the role of collective or aggregative mechanisms such as class actions, particularly outside the American context. This essay situates class actions in the legal mobilisation research tradition, drawing on insights from the two comparator regimes of Canada and Sweden, and offers a critical exploratory account of their role in facilitating collective legal mobilisation. The first section establishes the theoretical foundations for incorporating class actions into the tradition, exploring the main approaches to conceptualising legal mobilisation and identifying ways in which this incorporation expands and contributes to conventional approaches. The second section undertakes a comparative analysis with a focus on key design points and legal opportunity structures that promote or hinder collective legal mobilisation. Finally, the third section explores new and future trajectories of research, with a focus on benefits of comparative sociology of law and a critical orientation towards the promises and perils of collective legal mobilisation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".