MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920862888

THE SUPREME COURT, COMMERCE AND THE CONSUMER: MAKING THE MOST OF LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES

2001· article· en· W2920862888 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ronald C.C. Cuming

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtBankruptcyLegislationLawInsolvencySettlement (finance)PrecedentStatutory lawBusinessPolitical scienceFinancePayment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, Professor Cuming examines three related areas of commercial law that have been influenced by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada: secured financing law, Crown priorities and bankruptcy law. Major public policy choices made by the Court when interpreting provincial and federal legislation are noted. He concludes that the Court has had a very positive effect on the development of secured financing law. In his opinion, the Court's practice of reading down statutory provisions designed to subordinate prior in rein third party interests to claims of the Crown should cause legislators to approach tax collection in less detrimental ways. According to the author the Court's record in dealing with important bankruptcy issues is mixed. He applauds the Court's approach to the protection of non-corporate bankrupts through rejection of the concept of self settlement. However, when it comes to the Court's application of section 136 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Professor Cuming is less supportive. He questions why the very constructive approach employed by the Court when addressing the interface between the federal legislation and provincial personal property security laws was not applied where secured creditors of bankrupt debtors employ section 136 to circumvent provincial legislation designed to protect unpaid former employees of bankrupt organizations or crucial provincial revenue sources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207