MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005193046 · doi:10.1002/iir.1361

Rectifying an unconstitutional dispensation? A consideration of proposed reforms relating to no income no asset debtors in South Africa

2020· article· en· W3005193046 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hermie Coetzee, Melanie Roestoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtAsset (computer security)EconomicsIntervention (counseling)BusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The South African natural person debt relief system remains heavily procreditor and consequently excludes many deserving debtors from any form of relief. This is despite the fact that such marginalisation amounts to unjustifiable, unfair discrimination on the basis of debtors' financial status. The main aim of this article is to establish whether proposed reforms, and specifically the debt intervention procedure, will rectify the current unconstitutional dispensation and particularly the unreasonable unfair discrimination against “no income no asset” (NINA) debtors, who undoubtedly constitutes the largest part of relegated debtors. The article may benefit developing countries seeking to introduce debt relief measures curtailed to the needs of their ever‐escalating NINA debtors.

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207