MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027359568

Civil Litigation Process: Cases and Materials, 9th Edition

2005· article· en· W7027359568 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBooks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasebookWatsonCivil procedureCivil litigationIndigenousFlexibility (engineering)Practice of lawSection (typography)Common law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In its 7th edition, The Civil Litigation Process remains Canada's leading casebook on civil procedure. The new edition reflects recent developments in the law and embodies changes in the evolving approach to the teaching and learning of procedural law in Canadian classrooms. While the basic structure of the book has not changed, the authors have added a number of new topics and materials — including Indigenous dispute resolution, constitutional rights to legal services, expert witness, and national class actions — and have made adjustments to the focus and sequence of the topics of continuing interest.\nThe 7th edition is organized into 11 chapters, mindful of the need to keep it manageable and user-friendly within the time constraints of the standard Canadian law school semester. The authors have condensed each excerpt and each section of notes and questions. At the same time, Emond Montgomery will be launching a companion website to carry many of the materials that could not be included in the casebook, thus adding to its range of coverage and flexibility as well as ensuring its ongoing currency.\nThe Civil Litigation Process is truly national in scope, referring to cases and rules from all common-law provinces. It draws on the strong tradition of teachers and scholars of procedural law in Canada, with an author team of specialists from across the country: Janet Walker (general editor), Garry D. Watson (founding editor), Timothy Pinos (senior editor), Jane Bailey, Barbara Billingsley, Trevor C.W. Farrow, Colleen M. Hanycz, Erik S. Knutsen, Ronalda Murphy, Andrew Pirie, Sean Rehaag, and Lorne Sossin. Their collaborative efforts throughout the developmental process have resulted in a comprehensive, efficient and exceptionally teachable resource.

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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