MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128195647 · doi:10.3138/ccar.v8i1.73

From Edmonds to Campbell: A Principled Basis for Pre-Certification Costs

2012· article· en· W7128195647 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Class Action Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationJurisdictionLegislatureAction (physics)Class (philosophy)Class actionOrder (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protection against cost awards is a central feature of almost all class action legislation in Canada. The various protections afforded in each jurisdiction appear to be very similar when comparing the legislation from one province to the next; however, judicial approaches to cost awards have been very inconsistent — both within individual jurisdictions and when comparing one to the next. Failure to consistently apply these provisions has led to uncertainty that threatens to undermine the very issue of access to justice that cost protections are aimed to protect. The author undertakes a critical analysis of the historical development of various “no-costs” interpretations in Canadian jurisdictions in order to highlight the differences in approach and in hopes of drawing out an underlying set of principles. The author moves on to adopt the position of the Federal Court with respect to costs in Campbell v Canada, and concludes with an analysis of legislative intent underlying the various class action regimes.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Class Action ReviewSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207