MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919395100

LA COMPETENCE DES TRIBUNAUX EN MATIERE DE FAILLITE

2004· article· fr· W2919395100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yves Martineau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily and Matrimonial Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionDebtorBankruptcyLawSupreme courtCreditorPolitical scienceSubject-matter jurisdictionConfusionJurisprudenceOriginal jurisdictionBusinessPsychologyDebt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bankruptcy of a debtor usually gives rise to varied litigation, on one hand because the trustee inherits the claims and recourses of the debtor and, on the other because the administration of the bankruptcy is often in itself the source of litigation between the trustee and the creditors. These claims often raise several questions with respect to both the subject matter jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is not always easy to determine where these various claims can be filed and before which court. The author attempts to determine the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts in bankruptcy through a review of the cases rendered before and after the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on these issues, namely Sam Levy & Associes inc. v. Azco Mining inc., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 978. The author notes that if the subject matter jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction are in theory distinct concepts, the borders between them are far from watertight in bankruptcy matters. A study of the jurisprudence shows that there is sometimes confusion between the two concepts, which this article seeks to clarify.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicFamily and Matrimonial LawFrench-language works237,207