Bibliographic record
Abstract
The certification of aggregate damages is an important step in pushing a class action toward resolution. If aggregate damages are certified, the common issues trial represents a figurative “gun to the head” of the defendant. If aggregate damages are not certified, pressure on the defendant is relieved, and the class is faced with a far less certain path. Even if the class is successful at the common issues trial, individual damages hearings may devolve into complex and lengthy miniature trials, where access to justice and judicial efficiency are sacrificed. Over the past decade, Canadian courts have been of two minds when it comes to aggregate damages. Initially, courts applied a strict interpretation of section 24 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but subsequently they relaxed their interpretation, resulting in a wider array of scenarios where aggregate damages were certified. More recently, courts have returned to the more restrictive approach. This recent trend has led to some potentially unexpected results and a situation where aggregate damages are available only in the clearest of cases. This trend represents an inflexible and non-purposive reading of the CPA, and appellate guidance is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".