Bibliographic record
Abstract
The co-existence of a federal secured transactions regime (Bank Act security) and a provincial personal property security system (the PPSA) has given rise to a number of difficulties concerning the resolution of priorities. There has been a recent burst of activity – two Supreme Court of Canada decisions in 2010 followed by a federal legislative response in the form of an amendment to the Bank Act provisions, which the government expects to put in place by April 2012. Unfortunately, this latest legislative amendment is wholly inadequate. The new priority rule fails to confront the fundamental root of the problem: the fact that the priority mechanisms of the two regimes are based on two radically different ideas. It is a band aid solution that does not resolve the lack of compatibility between the two systems, but which will produce new interpretive problems and generate more litigation. As a consequence, many of the significant transactional efficiencies introduced by the modernization of provincial secured transactions law are severely compromised.
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 | 0.029 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.015 |
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".