MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909250426 · doi:10.1002/iir.1218

Assessing the Assessments

2014· article· en· W1909250426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ron Harmer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyFinancial crisisCommissionLegislaturePolitical scienceWork (physics)LawAccountingBusinessEconomicsLaw and economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract They said of the July 1997 Asian regional financial crisis that ‘…it could never happen again’. They were right. There has not been another regional crisis—just an international one! This paper owes its origins to the Asian financial crisis. The crisis sparked the development of an assessment model for the evaluation of insolvency laws. The paper reviews the considerable developments in this area, commencing with the pioneering work of the Asian Development Bank in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and culminating in the, now, quite established triennial practice of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in its assessment of the insolvency laws of its ‘countries of operation’. Along the way, mention is also made of the development and application of the World Bank ‘Principles’ and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Legislative Guide for Insolvency Law. All of these diagnostic tools have been variously employed in an endeavour to provide a fair and acceptable basis for evaluating an insolvency law. The paper draws comparisons from these tools and concludes that there is a considerable degree of correlation between them, such that approaches taken in 1998 have remained much the same to this time. The EBRD assessment programme is singled out for fuller analysis. It was developed with the benefit of the earlier assessment models and is consistently used as a means of tracking the development of insolvency laws. Accordingly, the paper presents the survey questionnaire on which the EBRD assessment is based, explains the methodology behind it and presents the results of the last of such assessments (2009). It invites an examination of the bases on which the EBRD assessments are undertaken and whether the approach is sufficiently broad, objective and fair and its use in possibly creating aspirations for reform. One purpose of the paper is to capture and record the historical origins and development of the assessment models before it all becomes lost in the passage of time. The paper also advances the use of the EBRD assessment model as a teaching tool in courses in comparative and international insolvency law. Copyright © 2014 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207