MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128828648 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v3n2p94

Lenders Liability of Commercial Banks in Environmental Tort: Focusing on American Law

2010· article· en· W2128828648 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
QU Dong-mei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityBusinessJoint and several liabilityScope (computer science)Hazardous wasteTortCompensation (psychology)Legal liabilityStrict liabilityLaw and economicsFinanceEconomicsEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the deterioration of the environment and increasingly seriously environmental damage, the spread of the environmental responsibility scope is one of means to respond environmental crises. The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980 (CERCLA of US) imposed strict and joint liability to commercial banks and made them first become the main principle of liability in the environment tort. The systems of the environmental lender liability in US indicate that any person who “holds indicia of ownership primarily to protect the security interest” in a vessel or facility and provides that this person will not be liable as an owner or operator if the person does not “participate in the management” of the facility or vessel. Otherwise, commercial banks will be identified as the responsible party for the cleanup and reimbursement of costs associated with releases of hazardous substances. The lender environmental liability systems haven’t been established in China. It is the nip in the bud to comprehensively cognize the systems environmental lender liability of US.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207