Basic insolvency situation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case Alternative 1 Tom is a real estate agent. One of the immovables he is trying to sell is an apartment belonging to Samantha. Bill is interested in buying this apartment. To show his seriousness in entering into negotiations, Bill writes a cheque for €10,000 as a deposit, which is to be refundable if the sale does not proceed. On Tom's instructions, Bill makes the cheque payable to Tom, and Tom deposits this cheque into his own bank account. The negotiations between Samantha and Bill break off with no contract, and Bill tells Tom to refund the money. Tom, who has made no withdrawal from the bank account in the intervening time, has become insolvent. Does Bill's claim to his deposit have priority over competing claims, or is he treated as a general creditor? Would it make a difference if Tom were a practising lawyer? Alternative 2 Tom is a travel agent. He sells tickets from various airlines to his customers. The money paid for the tickets by his customers is deposited in a bank account in Tom's name. When Tom becomes insolvent, some customers already have their tickets and some do not (and those who do not have tickets have no contractual claims against the airlines). The customers who have not been issued tickets claim back their money. The airlines claim payment from the bank account for tickets that have been issued. Tom's general creditors also claim the money in the bank account.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.015 |
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".