Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proportionality was introduced into Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure in 2008. A plain reading of Rules 1.04(1) and (1.1) is the ‘traditional’ interpretation of proportionality: that proportionality is merely the means of furthering efficiency and economy in individual cases, with the aim of better securing substantive justice on the merits in those cases. The relative measure is what is at stake in the individual case. This article suggests a counter-cultural interpretation: that proportionality is equal in importance to substantive justice and that, in certain circumstances, substantive justice in individual cases must give way to proportionality, in order to secure the just distribution of resources for all cases. The relative measure is what is at stake for the civil justice system as a whole, with justice defined more collectively. This article posits that proportionality can effect a change in our legal culture, but only if we accept a countercultural definition of that word.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".