MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200397163

Dropped HS and the 'PPSA': Lessons from the 'Fairbanx' Case

2011· article· en· W2200397163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of New South Wales law journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutePersonal propertyLegislationLawSecurity interestUniform Commercial CodeProperty (philosophy)State (computer science)Common lawProperty lawPolitical scienceBusinessProperty rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) ('PPSA') is scheduled to commence operation in early 2012. The statute is based in part on Canadian provincial legislation that, in turn, derives from Article 9 of the United States Uniform Commercial Code ('UCC'). Article 9 is a model statute drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in collaboration with the American Law Institute and it has been adopted in all States. The result is that United States secured lending law, although primarily a State responsibility, is substantially uniform throughout the country. The same is true in Canada. All the common law provinces and territories have enacted personal property securities statutes which, with the exception of the Ontario Personal Property Security Act, are based substantially on a model statute drafted by the Western Canada Personal Property Security Act Committee (now the Canadian Conference on Personal Property Security Law). The OPPSA shares many common features with the Model Act, but there are quite a number of differences in the details.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.027
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0140.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.140 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of New South Wales law journalSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207