Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proportionality in private law is subject to changing and contextual interpretations. It is enshrined in procedural laws around the world, implicitly or expressly, as a principle or policy. It has become a fundamental principle of civil procedure around the world. Accordingly, it is critical to law reform discussions here and elsewhere. In this article, proportionality is defined in the context of its historical evolution, and of the ways in which it has been applied in different legal traditions. Specifically, its codification provided in the Canadian province of Quebec is discussed, in its innovative Art. 4.2 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure. Th e value of proportionality is considered as a fundamental principle of procedural law, and the relevance and viability of certain reform ideas and perspectives are debated. The article concludes by insisting upon a certain evolution and change in culture of the principle, a broader and more generous interpretation of this principle, and an important revamping of the ethics and professional liability codes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it