MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327383966 · doi:10.1002/iir.1244

Is the Unequal Treatment of Debtors in Natural Person Insolvency Law Justifiable?: A South African Exposition

2016· article· en· W2327383966 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hermie Coetzee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyDebtorStatutory lawCreditorLegislatureDebtEconomicsPromotion (chess)ConstitutionAsset (computer security)BusinessLawLaw and economicsFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The South African natural person insolvency system has remained largely creditor‐orientated and excludes many honest but unfortunate debtors from its ambit. This is despite the worldwide trend to accommodate all such debtors. Although the system does provide for three different statutory natural person debt relief procedures, the cumulative effect of these measures' entry requirements results in differentiation on financial grounds. This is as all statutory measures require the debtor to have some form of disposable assets or income available – thereby drawing a distinction between those debtors with and those without assets and or income (the so‐called no income no asset debtors). The main aim of this article is to measure the South African natural person insolvency system against the right to equality in terms of both the South African Constitution and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. The article may benefit legislatures and policymakers in constitutional jurisdictions that subscribe to the equality principle and that directly or indirectly exclude some debtors from debt relief while providing others therewith. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207