MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413244088 · doi:10.3138/ccar.v15i1.005

The Collective Class Action: An Expansion of the Class Action Framework

2019· article· en· W4413244088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexis Giannelia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Class Action Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass actionCollective actionClass (philosophy)PlaintiffContext (archaeology)Law and economicsIndigenousPolitical scienceCorporate governanceConstructiveDiscretionDiversity (politics)Action (physics)Public relationsSociologyLawEconomicsComputer scienceGeographyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In the class actions context, Aboriginal rights and Indigenous issues have largely been considered from an individualistic perspective. Indeed, the use of class actions to address violations of collective rights has only been afforded cursory consideration. This paper argues that the class action framework can expand to accommodate collectives seeking remedies for violations of collective rights, constructing a collective class action framework. Three existing mechanisms of the class action framework can be used to ensure collective class actions are efficient, effective, and constructive. First, the potential opt-in configuration of class actions can acknowledge the diversity and autonomy of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Second, the class of collectives can establish an internal governance structure that can assume the role of representative plaintiff. And third, in no-cost regimes, the protection from costs is invaluable to Indigenous litigants, many of whom have finite financial resources. In jurisdictions that allow an award of costs in class proceedings, judges can, and should, use their public interest discretion to not award costs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Class Action ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207