MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W70787917

Wilful, reckless and uninsurable?

2014· article· en· W70787917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johanna Hjalmarsson

Bibliographic record

VenueePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtMisconductAppealLawPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)Law and economicsSociologyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Was it wilful? Was it misconduct? The recent Canadian Supreme Court Decision in Peracomo Inc and Others v TELUS Communications Co and Others (The Realice) restores order on the limitation issue: the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision to break limitation on the basis that Mr Vallée had not had the requisite intent to cause the damage that resulted (“recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result”). In that part, the decision is probably uncontroversial – it has proven notoriously difficult to break the limitation. More interesting is the discussion of section 53(2)(a) of the Marine Insurance Act 1993,1 where the majority of four held that the conduct had not amounted to wilful misconduct, but one of the judges dissented

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueePrints Soton (University of Southampton)Same topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207