Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay is inspired by two recent books on comparative consumer bankruptcy: (1) Consumer Bankruptcy in Global Perspective (Oxford, U.K. and Portland, Ore.: Hart Publishing, 2003, Johanna Niemi-Kiesilainen, Iain Ramsay, and William Whitford, editors), and (2) Jacob S. Ziegel, Comparative Consumer Insolvency Regimes - A Canadian Perspective (Oxford, U.K. and Portland, Ore.: Hart Publishing, 2003). After describing the worldwide legislative frenzy in the enactment of consumer bankruptcy laws since 1984, the essay turns to three basic questions. First, the paper asks - should we care about comparative consumer bankruptcy study? That is, is the comparative study of consumer bankruptcy regimes meaningful, useful, or helpful? After expressing a number of caveats, several substantial benefits of comparative bankruptcy scholarship are noted. Second, the article examines what forces are driving the global legislative surge? Here the paper points to strong evidence that the democratisation of consumer credit, stemming from deregulation and improved technology and information, has driven up the amount of consumer credit exponentially, with a correspondingly large increase in default, thus necessitating some sort of legislative response to consumer over-indebtedeness. Finally, the paper asks whether there is a global trend of convergence, whereby legislative relief for over-indebted consumers is moving towards a common set of norms. The paper suggests that while there is some evidence of convergence, the differences still are substantial, predominate, and are likely to - and should - persist.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".