MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589706160

Debtor-induced payments

2014· article· en· W2589706160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David C Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueAdelaide law review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtorPersonal propertyCreditorSecurity interestBusinessEntitlement (fair division)DebtPaymentCollateralLegislationUniform Commercial CodeLaw and economicsLawFinanceEconomicsProperty (philosophy)Political science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Australian Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), as do the other personal property security acts of New Zealand and the Canadian provinces, clearly states that the recipient of a debtor-induced payment made by a grantor of a security interest in collateral is immunised from a proceeds claim or priority entitlement by a secured party. The policy behind debtor-induced payments is primarily to ensure that a debtor is able to pay his or her general unsecured creditors in priority to the debts owed to a secured party. An additional policy reason is the protection of the economy through the maintenance of the payments system generally. This article critically examines the legislation in the various Personal Property Securities Acts, including the case law, identifies the policy arguments in support of a broad application of the rule and suggests that the American provision in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code provides a better solution as it will enhance the ability of a debtor to pay his or her unsecured debts and thereby ensure the free flow of cash and negotiable instruments used to pay debts.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdelaide law reviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207