Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increased sophistication of financial markets and financial instruments, the use of hybrid investments has been on the rise in recent decades. This article considers the question of how Canadian courts have drawn the border between debt and equity in the context of bankruptcy proceedings. The basic argument is that Canadian courts should allow the recent reforms to bring about their intended clarity on the border between debt and equity by not departing from the bright line test set out in the legislation. The article compares the pre and post-amendment case law and uses two case studies to illustrate the undue complexity that has been created by layering a contextual analysis on top of the new bright line tests. Simply put, in the context of investment classification decisions for the purposes of bankruptcy proceedings, Canadian courts should limit the scope of their analysis to an inquiry of whether the investment in question falls within the scope of the "equity claim" definition provided under Canadian bankruptcy legislation. Only then can bankruptcy costs be limited and can we come closer to a model assumed by the Modiglani-Miller Theorem.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".