The ‘fresh start’ for individual debtors: social, moral and practical issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of a “fresh start” for individual debtors has been introduced in the Netherlands in 1998. Until then a natural person could be pursued for the debts he could not pay indefinitely. Their position was not different from the unfortunate debtors in many European countries to day. The entrance to the “fresh start‐ procedure” in the Netherlands is surrounded by impediments, the access is linked to the debtor in good faith, but after three years the fresh start comprises all debts (except student loans), none excluded. In the United States the fresh start doctrine is long established law, the entrance is easy, but many debts may be excluded. Because of public dissatisfaction in both countries the concept has changed. In the Netherlands many debts may now be excluded from the fresh start and in the United States a means test has been introduced. The two concepts of a fresh start for the natural person in both countries, originally so differnt in approach, now converged. Will the twain meet? Copyright © 2008 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 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 | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".