MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587074410 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1406

Book Review: Debt's Dominion: A History of Bankruptcy Law in America, by David A. Skeel Jr.

2003· article· en· W2587074410 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janis Sara

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionBankruptcyDebtLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceHistoryEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debt's Dominion is a mix of political intrigue and historical drama in the evolution of U.S. bankruptcy law.The number of bankruptcies has skyrocketed in the United States, with more than one million individuals filing for bankruptcy annually.The U.S. bankruptcy regime, like those of most developed market economies, provides corporations with a liquidation option and a reorganization option.Similarly, personal bankruptcy offers two avenues of discharge: straight liquidation, in which the individual debtor relinquishes all assets except specified exemptions; and a rehabilitation option, where the debtor retains all assets and a portion of income is directed towards partial repayment of the debt over a defined period.Skeel provides a well-researched and comprehensive description of the historical development of the U.S. system.Skeel attempts a "fully theorized explanation" of the current bankruptcy regime.3 He grounds his account in public choice theory, and the political and institutional devices used by special interest groups to advance and protect their normative vision of bankruptcy law.At the heart of his account is the public choice notion that concentrated interest groups frequently benefit at the expense of widely scattered groups, even if the

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.012

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207