La Dissuasion : 10 Ans de Jurisprudence Canadienne en Matière D’autorisation D’exerc er un Recours Collectif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behaviour modification is frequently identified as an objective of class actions. Many commentators consider behaviour modification to be a major function of class actions, if not the most important function. In Canada, with the exception of Quebec, the “preferability” of a class action is one criterion of analysis at the stage of certification. As part of the analysis at this stage, the deterrent effects of the class action can be taken into consideration. A review of the last ten years of Canadian jurisprudence in the area of class action certification demonstrates that the current application of behaviour modification as a criterion for authorizing certification is useless and inconsistent. Such a conclusion is not surprising in the sense that behaviour modification remains a general justification for the existence of class actions as a type of recourse while very rarely constituting independent grounds for certification. Behaviour modification does appear to be a useful criterion at the class action certification stage in certain contexts; however, its application remains nonetheless underdeveloped.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".