Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the turn of the century, there has been a great deal of discussion in England about the reform of the law of security. It all started in a fairly low-key way. What was proposed was to update the law concerning the registration of company charges as part of the general overhaul of the companies legislation. The Law Commission then got involved, and it produced three papers between 2002 and 2005. Its initial recommendation was to adopt a Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) on the lines of that in Canada and New Zealand, and which has since been adopted in Australia. That recommendation was never adopted. Instead, the government reverted to the initial idea of updating the registration of company charges, and that resulted in a new streamlined registration system in April 2013. Where does that leave the more general reform of the law of security? The purpose of the chapter is three-fold: first, to explore in detail the principles which underlie the approach to the law of security, namely simplicity, flexibility, freedom of contract, and transparency; secondly, to discuss the extent to which the English law of security complies with those principles; and thirdly, to describe briefly how a good law of security might be structured.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".