MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801858773 · doi:10.1002/iir.1297

The Empirical Studies of China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law: Problems and Improvements

2018· article· en· W2801858773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaowei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyChinaGovernment (linguistics)BusinessDerivatives marketLaw and economicsEmpirical researchEconomicsLawMarket economyFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the past 9 years since the implementation of China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law in 2007, it has contributed to some measures of regulating market practice and rearrangement of market resources and has become an integral part in an improved legal system of China's market economy. However, a closer look at the effect of implementing the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law shows that the number of bankruptcy cases after its implementation, instead of increasing, has taken on a trend of decreasing. Even under the influence of the 2008 financial crisis, no significant increase in the number of Chinese bankrupt enterprises means that China's Bankruptcy Law failed to play its due role, leaving a large gap as desired. As such, this article aims to examine the problems arising from the implementation of the Bankruptcy Law and, taking this as guidance, probe into the reasons hidden behind and propose possible improvement measures. It is expected that the Bankruptcy Law would increasingly play a key role in the development of China's market economy, particularly under the current situation where Chinese government proposes to clean up zombie businesses. Copyright © 2018 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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