Legal Culture, Path Dependence and Dysfunctional Layering in Belgian Corporate Insolvency Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The history of Belgian corporate insolvency law demonstrates the lasting effect and the replication of implicit legal–economic conceptions. Even though, since the middle of the 19th century, pre‐insolvency proceedings were made available in Belgium, the effectiveness of these proceedings was limited. This was due to the dysfunctional juxtaposing of proceedings and the reluctance of the legislator to change earlier approaches. Closely related thereto was the lack of impact assessments preceding legal reforms and the continuation of ideas regarding the restrained powers of courts and preferential treatment of secured creditors. Debates in Parliament turned around principles, not around the effect or harmonisation of laws. Members of Parliament typically had had legal training; economic analyses were largely absent. In the course of the 20th century, new ideas on broader intervention by judges were put down in draft bills, but only a small portion of them made it to become legislation. The 1997 law on restructuring proceedings went farthest in granting competences to the commercial court for assessing the feasibility of reorganisation schemes, but this was readjusted in 2009. As a result, judicial restraint is still present, and the rights of secured creditors are considered paramount, this in spite of contrary foreign examples. Strong path dependence in Belgian corporate insolvency law is the result of prevailing beliefs and cannot be attributed to lobbying efforts or deliberate choice. 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".