MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407831967 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n6p34

Some Legal Aspects of Non-judicial Foreclosure in Case of Default on Credit Contract in Vietnam

2016· article· en· W2407831967 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeclosureCreditorCollateralBusinessLawSecurity interestJudicial reviewPossession (linguistics)EconomicsLaw and economicsPolitical scienceDebtFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This paper aims to present the authors’ examination of some aspects of Vietnam’s positive law regarding non-judicial foreclosure. Upon default, a bank as a secured creditor may enforce his security right over the collateral that is understood as foreclosure. Foreclosure includes judicial foreclosure and non-judicial foreclosure. In the way of non-judicial foreclosure, a secured creditor can take possession and dispose the secured property without a court’s involvement. So, it may save the secured creditor time and cost. The law governing the non-judicial foreclosure should not only provide the efficient mechanics of self-help repossession but also protections to a grantor. It should be examined whether Vietnamese law meets this requirement. By this study, some drawbacks and shortages of Vietnamese law in relation to non-judicial foreclosure are exposed and then some recommendations for improvement of positive law of Vietnam governing the exercise of the non-judicial foreclosure are presented. </p>

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.304
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