MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W278089968

A Canadian Perspective

2001· article· en· W278089968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob S. Ziegel

Bibliographic record

VenueTexas law review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle classPrivilege (computing)LawPleasureKindnessPopulationSociologyBankruptcyConsumer debtPolitical scienceDebtEconomicsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THE FRAGILE MIDDLE CLASS: AMERICANS IN DEBT. By Teresa A. Sullivant^, Elizabeth Warren^^ & Jay Lawrence Westbrook^^. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Pp. xvii, 380. $35.00.^^^^ I. Introduction I feel a very special pleasure and privilege in having been invited to participate in this Seminar. It is a pleasure because I have long admired the authors' pioneering work on the sociolegal aspects of consumer bankruptcies and the workings of the American bankruptcy system, and not least because they have done so with great style, verve, and literacy. It is a privilege because only great kindness could have persuaded the organizers of the Seminar to invite an emeritus academic from another country, who is neither an economist nor a sociologist, and knows very little about American insolvency law, to presume to offer comments on so complex an area of consumer bankruptcies as is addressed in The Fragile Middle Class. And indeed, I am not even going to try. It does seem useful, however, for me to offer some comparative observations because the United States and Canadian consumer bankruptcy regimes share many common features. Canada has the dubious distinction of being second only to the United States in having the highest number of consumer insolvencies in the Western hemisphere and the second highest rate per population.' So it is of more than passing interest to know whether the authors' thesis also applies to Canada. That thesis falls into two parts. The first part is that consumer bankruptcies in the United States are predominantly a middle class phenomenon. The second part is that the principal causes of consumer bankruptcies can be traced to unemployment and downsizing, medical bills and other effects of significant illnesses, broken families, burdens of home ownership, and the transforming effects of credit cards as the newest form of consumer credit. The first part of the authors' thesis does not, contingently at least, apply to Canada. The second part does and does not, depending on which causative bankruptcy factor is being discussed. II. Methodological Difficulties Before expanding on these conclusions, I must allude to important methodological difficulties in comparing the survey results discussed in The Fragile Middle Class with the results of Canadian empirical studies. Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook were fortunate to be able to replicate their own study ten years apart, using the same methodology, and are therefore able to write confidently about the reliability of their data. The same claim cannot be made for Canada. Since 1982, three major studies and a smaller empirical study3 have been completed by different hands in the United States's northern neighbor. Unfortunately, each of the major studies has its own distinctive features and uses a different methodology. Brighton and Connidis (1982)4 examined a random sample of 1,509 geographically balanced consumer bankruptcies across Canada by consulting the files kept at the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) in Ottawa. Schwartz and Anderson's investigation (1997)5 was sponsored by the Office of Consumer Affairs of Industry Canada and involved collecting information across Canada from Canadian trustees6 about potential bankrupts who had consulted the trustees about their debt problems but had not yet made a decision. lain Ramsay's study (1998)' was an independent scholarly enterprise and involved the culling of data from 1,147 randomly selected bankruptcy files in the Toronto Bankruptcy Office.' Finally, the smaller study previously referred to, again officially sponsored, was a 1994 follow-up on the Brighton and Connidis study although most of the results were not published until 1999.9 The type and amount of data collected in these four studies varies considerably and is often not comparable. In the critically important area of the causes of bankruptcy, results usually reflect the trustee's assessment of the debtor's answers, and there is mostly no independent verification of the answers. …

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations88
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTexas law reviewSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207