Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most significant decisions in a class action can come long before any ruling on certification. For plaintiff’s counsel, class members, and even defendants, any decision on carriage will have obvious and long-lasting effects on how a particular class action will proceed. It has now been over a decade since Canadian courts first articulated the factors to be considered when resolving carriage fights in class proceedings. Since the Vitapharm decision in 2000, there have been examples of chaos brought about by inconsistent carriage decisions, as well as examples of uniformity of approach by courts across Canada. Recently, Ontario courts have decided several high-profile cases on carriage that have better clarified the approach that will now be taken on carriage decisions in the future (at least in Ontario). Ultimately, a review of carriage decisions since Vitapharm shows that, while the specific factors given emphasis by the court on carriage motions may change across time and the facts of each case, the concern for the best interests of the class is always at the fore.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".