Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the financial crisis of the late 1997, the Korean government took a series of structural reform measures to improve the standards of financial system and to enhance the securities market. One major change was to enact the Securities related Class Actions Act that efficiently seeks a relief for collective injuries caused in the course of trading securities and ultimately to enhance the operational transparency of companies in Korea. Even thought this Act was in effective in 2005, the Act appled to some size of companies’ claim for compensation of loss incurred from the first activity after Jan. 2007. Historically said that securities class action system was made and developed under the American economic circumstance which is the representative model of the formal capitalism. So Korea is the unique country which introduced the securities class action system to its own financial market among the OECD member countries excluding the U.S. and Canada. In that the Korean government should be very serious and studied many aspects of securities class action in order to make the system of the securities class action just fit to the Korean financial market. This Article is basically to examine the securities class action in the U.S. focused on the Federal Civil Procedure Rule, Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act, Sabanes-Oxley Act, and Class Action Fairness Act. Also the Article studies the current trend of securities class action in the U.S. in order to compare it to that in the Korean financial Market. The Article finally tries to suggest the betterment of the Securities Related Class Action Act in Korea.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.023 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".