MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1946297682 · doi:10.1002/iir.1230

Chapter 15 Recognition in the United States: Is a Debtor “Presence” Required?

2015· article· en· W1946297682 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel M. Glosband, Jay Lawrence Westbrook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtorBankruptcyInsolvencyConfusionLawLaw and economicsBusinessSection (typography)Political scienceCreditorDebtEconomicsFinancePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A recent appellate decision in the USA (In re Barnet) confuses the foreign debtor with the foreign insolvency representative. Notwithstanding the focus of US bankruptcy law on a foreign proceeding as the object of an ancillary case under Chapter 15, with the foreign representative as its emissary, the decision dismayed the international insolvency community by ruling that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to recognition under Chapter 15. The result is to require that the debtor in a foreign proceeding has some minimum jurisdictional presence in the USA as a condition of Chapter 15 recognition. Such a presence might include a domicile, a place of business, or property. While there might be a “backdoor” device avoiding this result, the decision creates serious confusion and a potential obstacle to full international recognition. 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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