Vexatious Litigants, Meads, and the Hermeticism of Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following from understandable concerns about costs of legal services, coupled with the need to ensure greater access to justice for citizens, it comes as no surprise that the number of Self-Represented Litigants, or SRLs, has been on the rise. But the ever-increasing presence of SRLs creates a tension in an already-overburdened legal system—between fostering access to justice on the one hand, and trying to manage an entire class of untrained users on the other. This study examines a particular class of SRL, the so-called Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial (OPCA) litigant, a descriptor introduced by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads v Meads, a now seminal Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruling. Specifically, this thesis reflects on how OPCA litigants are resistant to accepting highly standardized or entrenched legal methods of interpretation, and how the concept of judicial authority in certain respects fails to function in the case of OPCA litigants. This, in turn, impedes the access to justice ideal. Related, this study examines how OPCA litigants (and SRLs in general) are “outsiders” to a legal system, where the judiciary and lawyers enjoy the status of “insiders.” In this regard, this study employs an interdisciplinary analysis, drawing from realms such as religious studies, social psychology, and philosophy, to show how the law’s “othering” of these litigants creates further alienation between the two sides. While this study focuses on the above issues specifically in relation to the OPCA phenomenon, it is an analysis that ultimately has much broader implications in terms of the quest for greater access to justice. Ultimately, this study is intended to point to how issues relating to legal hermeneutics, judicial authority, and an insider/outsider dichotomy all have a significant bearing on the ever-elusive quest for meaningful access to justice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".