Question the Unquestionable Beauty of A Collective Proceeding for All Sovereign Debt Claims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The new challenges presented by the current Eurozone crisis and the NML Capital v. Argentina case are likely to shift the international community's attention from holdout behavior in foreign bonds restructuring to inter‐creditor issues. In the past years, many academics, and nongovernmental organizations concerned with debt relief, have put forward proposals to create a bankruptcy regime for states. But none of these proposals has seriously examined what rules should apply to treatment among creditors. Moreover, all insist that there must be a collective proceeding for all sovereign debt claims, without explaining why. This approach is simply taken for granted, as it is one of the fundamental principles of bankruptcy law. The article questions this orthodoxy through examining the nature of sovereign debt crisis, the feature of the limited pool of sovereign assets, and the nonliquidable fact of the sovereign debtor. It also argues that the common pool problem does not exist in the sovereign debt context.
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 | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".