Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article explores the occurrence of "final payment" in funds transfers in the form of "accountability" by a bank instructed to pay to a payee/beneficiary. Both the accountability of the drawee/payor bank in a check-collection debit-pull system and that of the beneficiary's bank in a wire-transfer credit-push system are discussed. The article further examines the relationship between "final payment" and the discharge of an obligation paid by means of the "funds transfer." It analyzes relevant provisions of Articles 3, 4, and 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, sometimes against the background of general common law principles. The article proposes minor statutory amendments, and also points out a possible improved bank mechanism consisting of a bank check paid by means of a wire transfer. Such mechanism is designed to meet regulatory concerns, as well as to enhance speed and flexibility for a discharge in connection with a payment that is either required to coincide with the occurrence of external conditions or is otherwise time sensitive. While concluding that the various components of the U.C.C. scheme that governs the subject are fundamentally sound, the article recommends the pursuance of a law reform project leading to a statute dealing with both "finality of payment" and discharge across all categories of payment systems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".