MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755620651 · doi:10.1002/iir.1285

From ‘Prisoner's Dilemma’ to Reluctance to Use Judicial Discretion: The Enemies of Cooperation in European Cross‐Border Cases

2017· article· en· W2755620651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Renato Mangano

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretionInsolvencyDilemmaLaw and economicsPsychological interventionLawPolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsPublic relationsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article will focus on Articles 41–44 of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation (Regulation 2015/848) and the dynamic of cooperation and communication between courts and insolvency practitioners. Two main ideas will be maintained. The first is that cooperation requires a legal framework which is certain—otherwise, prescriptions imposing duties of cooperation and communication might produce ‘prisoner's dilemmas’ and, paradoxically, unwillingness to cooperate. The second idea is that prescriptions imposing duties of cooperation and communication have an intrinsic open texture—this characteristic ontologically requires courts and insolvency practitioners to make choices between different rulings and activities. These findings imply that while interventions, both at European level and at national level, aiming at making the legal framework more certain are always welcome, interventions aiming at better specifying contents and extension of duties of cooperation and communication could be to a certain extent useless and even counterproductive. Copyright © 2017 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 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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.035
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0130.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207