Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Bill of Exchange Act (the Act), covering bills of exchange (bills), cheques, and promissory notes (notes), is modeled on its counterpart in England (the English Act). It was first adopted in Canada in 1890 and, while it has been amended several times, has never been substantially overhauled during the intervening 120 years. One judge described the English Act as "the best drafted Act of Parliament ever passed." Nevertheless, over the years, some contentious issues have arisen in connection with its interpretation while other provisions have become obsolete. Even so, considering the overall operation of the Act, one can conclude that, as a codification of the law of negotiable instruments, it has served its purpose well. I do not propose repealing the Act or replacing it with a new statute. Rather, the purpose of this paper is to identify points to be addressed in specific amendments to the existing Act and designed to clarify and improve the law of negotiable instruments. This approach will retain the Act's connection with English law, including the extensive jurisprudence that has evolved over the years throughout the Commonwealth and in other countries with similar legislation. It should be pointed out that the Act has not functioned as a codification of the law of payment systems or funds transfers. Thus, while it provides for cheques as instruments, it is not a comprehensive code covering cheque collection; nor does it cover other methods for the transfer of funds from one bank account to another. The proposed amendments are not intended to be a substitute for the badly needed and long overdue codification of a more general funds transfer law.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".