MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979512789 · doi:10.1002/iir.151

Should reciprocity be a part of the UNCITRAL Model Cross‐Border Insolvency Law?

2007· article· en· W1979512789 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Keith D. Yamauchi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)InsolvencyCommissionInternational trade lawLegislationLaw and economicsLawPolitical scienceEconomicsBusinessSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1997, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law adopted a Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency. Since then, many countries have passed it or a revised version of it. In many cases, the adopting country wrestled with the issue of whether to include a reciprocity provision in its version. Some have included such a provision, others have not. The inclusion of a reciprocity provision is not consistent. This article discusses the concept and argues that a reciprocity provision could be detrimental to the operation of the Model Law and prejudicial to the parties; especially those in the country whose legislation includes such a provision. Copyright © 2007 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207