MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042431532 · doi:10.1002/iir.188

Funding corporate rescue: the Impact of the financial crisis

2010· article· en· W2042431532 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R.D. Vriesendorp, Martin Gramatikov

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyBankruptcyRestructuringCreditorBusinessLegislationFinanceFinancial crisisRecessionEconomic recoveryFinancial systemDebtEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Insolvency reform across many jurisdictions over the last twenty years has focused on the development of legislation to facilitate business reorganizations. However, any regime which involves rescue requires a degree of support from the commercial environment. The rescue regimes may therefore be severely tested in situations where there is a general economic downturn such as the world has experienced in the last two years. This article evaluates empirically the perceived impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the opportunities for rescue on the basis of a survey we set out among insolvency professionals worldwide. Most of the 562 respondents to the survey from 56 jurisdictions agree that the credit crisis of 2007 stifled the access of distressed business to financial facilities so needed for successful restructuring. It retrenched the access to financial facilities and thus impacted negatively the prospects for preventing or even ending the bankruptcy procedure with reorganization instead of winding up of the estate assets. Several reasons that have been pointed out by the insolvency professionals in our survey are discussed in this article. We conclude that somewhat paradoxically just when rescue is needed the most, the practical reality may be that businesses will not be saved if there is insufficient support available either by way of additional credit or because other (funding) creditors are so financially stressed themselves that they are unable or unwilling to support any potential rescue. Copyright © 2010 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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