MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000662142

A frolic in the law of tort: expanding
\nthe scope of employers' vicarious
\nliability

2010· article· en· W7000662142 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVicarious liabilityScope (computer science)LiabilitySupreme courtContext (archaeology)Strict liabilityConnection (principal bundle)Common law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional approach to the imposition of employers' vicarious liability has recently been reconsidered and revised by the Supreme Court of Canada and the House of Lords, in the context of employees' sexual assaults committed against young persons in their charge. Under the new, more flexible approach, vicarious liability can be imposed on the basis of a close connection between the employment and the tort. This change is more than cosmetic. It is no longer necessary to show that the employee's wrongful act was a mode of carrying out the employment duties. This article reviews the case law in which this development has taken place, and considers the appropriateness of the close connection principle to cases of negligence-based torts.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong)Same topicDiscrimination and Equality LawFrench-language works237,207