MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1801781398 · doi:10.1002/iir.1241

Bridge over Troubled Water: The Revised Insolvency Regulation

2015· article· en· W1801781398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Weiß

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyParliamentLegislatureJurisdictionNegotiationCommissionLawPolitical scienceEuropean commissionPublic administrationBusinessLaw and economicsAccountingEconomicsEuropean unionInternational tradePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The EU legislature has used the last two and a half years to negotiate a modernised framework for cross-border insolvencies largely outside the spotlight of public debate. The revised Insolvency Regulation introduces new rules on secondary proceedings and innovative provisions on insolvency proceedings for groups of companies. Some parts of the final reform package were not originally envisaged by the European Commission, and it was the European Parliament and the Council that, in an unusual display of unity, agreed on more ambitious steps than the EU executive had proposed. However, not all that glitters is gold. The legislature missed the opportunity to clarify the concept of Centre of Main Interest, and it is still for the courts to establish international jurisdiction on the basis of rather vague criteria. It will soon be time to give life to the rules and ensure that cross-border insolvencies are conducted more effectively than they are today. The new rules entered into force on 25 June 2015 and apply from 26 June 2017. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0190.009
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0260.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207