The United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade: insolvency aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Breaking new ground, the UN Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade refers all priority conflicts with respect to receivables to the law of single and easily determinable jurisdiction, and one that is most likely going to be the insolvency jurisdiction, namely to the law of the assignor's place of business or, in the case of places of business in more than one State, the assignor's central administration. In the case of an insolvency proceeding in another jurisdiction, the mandatory rules of that juridiction displace any priority rule of the law of the assignor's location only if that priority rule is manifestly contrary to the public policy of that jurisdiction. In such a case, the balance of the priority rules of the law of the assignor's location prevails over the priority rules of the insolvency jurisdiction with the exception of rules relating to preferential rights. In any case, the Convention ensures that priority rules do not interfere with basic insolvency rights, such as those relating to stays, avoidance actions and to the performance of contracts or maintenance of the estate. Copyright © 2004 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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".