Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article was written for an Insolvency Law Teaching and Research Workshop run by the University of Southern Queensland in Brisbane earlier this year. It gives an account of the commercial bankruptcy law reform process in Canada with particular reference to three issues: (1) the disclaimer, assignment and assumption of executory contracts (including collective bargaining agreements) in insolvency proceedings; (2) the review of pre-bankruptcy transactions (transfers at under value and preferences); and (3) the subordination of claims (subordination agreements, subordination of equity claims and equitable subordination). The discussion of each issue starts with a short account of the current Canadian law, before moving on to deal with the reform proposals and the debate surrounding them. In line with the nature of the workshop, the article incorporates questions for further research, some of which are already under active consideration In Canada. Insolvency Jaw reform is also on the agenda in Australia and New Zealand. Local law reformers may find there are lessons to learn from the Canadian experience. Likewise, there are lessons Canada may learn from Jaw reform experiences in Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".