MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1576461159

Methods for Enforcing Civil Judgments in Ontario

2007· article· en· W1576461159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pamela D. Pengelley

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtorPlaintiffRestitutionWritCreditorEnforcementPaymentBusinessOrder (exchange)LawDebtAction (physics)Civil procedureLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obtaining a against a defendant in a subrogated action may often be only the first step in a long process - obtaining a is no guarantee of obtaining payment. When a court issues a judgment, it is not concerned with whether the unsuccessful party will ever actually pay the amount. It is up to the subrogating insurer, being the nominal plaintiff, to take this initiative. This situation is the same in cases where a criminal court orders that a defendant pay restitution, and the order is later converted to a civil judgment.Nonetheless, Ontario's civil court system does provide the successful insurer (the judgment creditor) with mechanisms to assist in collecting payment from the unsuccessful defendant (the judgment debtor). The two most common mechanisms for this purpose are (1) a writ of seizure and sale, and (2) a garnishment of debts, such as wages, owing to the debtor. In practice, however, these mechanisms can become quite complicated and are often inefficient. This article canvasses the advantages and limits of these enforcement mechanisms.

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)0.009
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207