MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128201105 · doi:10.3138/ccar.v9i2.419

Putting A Price on Legal Services: Determining Reasonable Class Counsel Fees in the Settlement Context

2014· article· en· W7128201105 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean Lortie, Lisa Chamandy, Shaun E Finn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Class Action Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass actionRes judicataSettlement (finance)Class (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Order (exchange)Substantive lawNew class

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the attribution of fees in the context of class action settlements. More specifically, it posits that Quebec courts can use a risk multiplier (or “lodestar” method) in order to calculate class counsel fees or to gauge the reasonableness of a contingency arrangement. Since Quebec class actions are based on a foreign procedural model, it is fitting that external common law approaches to fee assessment be employed to ensure that the fees awarded to class counsel are fair, appropriate, in the best interests of class members, and the better administration of justice.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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