MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413733822 · doi:10.3138/ccar.v19i1.159

To Certify or not to Certify: Third Parties, Necessary Parties, and the Certification of Class Actions in Common Law Canada

2023· article· en· W4413733822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Class Action Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationLawClass (philosophy)Common lawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian common law courts have taken a handful of approaches in class certification proceedings where third or necessary parties are involved. The caselaw demonstrates that Canadian common law courts have generally been less willing to certify class actions where third parties are involved or where necessary parties have not been named as defendants in the main action. The Ragoonanan rule may also incidentally prevent class certification where there are third or necessary parties. In this paper, the three principal goals of class actions are reviewed and applied to class certification proceedings involving third or necessary parties. Considering the principals of class actions, should the existence of third or necessary parties prevent the certification of a class action?

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Class Action ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207