Bibliographic record
Abstract
In BCE Inc. (Re), the Supreme Court of Canada expanded the list of relevant principles with respect to the law relating to arrangements, and established a specific structure for their consideration. This article argues that, despite the expansion of the list of principles, the court has retained the flexibility that has traditionally characterized the law on arrangements. However, this area is law is also somewhat uncertain following BCE due to newly introduced concepts, including the distinction between legal rights and economic interests. Part II outlines the law relating to arrangements following the BCE decision. Part III discusses why arrangements are considered to be an attractive form of acquisition for parties and assesses whether BCE has fundamentally altered the arrangement process as set forth by the Supreme Court in this case. Part V examines one aspect of the decision, in which the court attempted to clarify when different parties will be accorded a vote in the transaction by distinguishing economic interests from legal rights, and suggests that this effort created new uncertainty of its own. Part VI concludes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".