MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395030898 · doi:10.29173/alr2709

Tort Claims Against Public Authorities

2022· article· en· W4395030898 on OpenAlexaffvenue
The Honourable Justice Malcolm Rowe, Manish Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortBusinessLaw and economicsLawPolitical scienceEconomicsLiability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When interactions between modern states and their citizens result in harm to individuals, the legal system is called upon to provide redress. Holding public authorities liable in tort is one solution the common law has developed to compensate individuals for harm incurred through state action. This article highlights the role that tort law plays in seeking redress against public authorities, and explores the extent to which tort law has converged with, or diverged from, other avenues of redress. After providing a brief history of tort claims against public authorities, we proceed to compare torts with judicial review, looking to their respective principles of liability, the formal aspects of bringing a claim, the substantive conditions of liability, and remedies. Through this comparison, we hope to elucidate the structure of the existing legal framework governing tort claims against public authorities.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0110.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207