Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class actions are not considered to affect substantive law in any way, despite the fact that, by their very nature, they invite unique procedural rules. In the context of an action in civil liability brought in the form of a class action, the elements of fault, prejudice, and causal connection must be established in respect of the members of the group by the normal evidentiary rules. Through the study of recent caselaw and the way the fundamental elements of civil liability are dealt with, this article aims at determining if class actions in the Province of Quebec are characterized by a more collective or restrictive approach. A collective approach is placed in opposition to a more restrictive approach that would tend to present class actions as a simple procedural vehicle, thus showing greater respect for the general principles of civil liability. It is argued that the treatment of causation at the authorization stage suggests that class actions in Quebec will remain anchored in a collective approach, but that striking a better balance between this approach and the general principles of civil liability is desirable. Otherwise, the result will be less predictability at the trial stage, and less efficiency with respect to the allocation of judicial resources.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".