MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7147707594 · doi:10.38140/jjs.v28i1.2858

Groepsgedingvoering — die voorstel van die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie vir die sertifisering van ’n groepsgeding

2003· article· W7147707594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. H. De Bruin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Juridical Science · 2003
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromulgationCommissionLegislationCertificationClass (philosophy)Class action

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this contribution the proposals of the South African Law Commission for the certification of a class action are discussed. These proposals are the products of a working paper and a report published in 1995 and 1998 respectively. In both these documents the Commission proposed the promulgation of legislation to provide the necessary framework to govern class actions. The proposals are discussed with reference to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (United States of America).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.005

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.295
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Juridical ScienceSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207