Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Legal Determinants of External Finance, Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny (“LLSV”) argue that the reason that some countries have bigger capital markets than others can be traced to the legal origin of the country, i.e. whether it is a common law or a civil law jurisdiction. This paper explores the LLSV thesis in the context of Canada, which is a common law jurisdiction that also is home to Quebec which has a civil law tradition.Three issues are examined in this paper: first, how and why Canada fared relatively well in the recent financial crisis, second, why Canada has not yet created a national securities regulator, and third, how Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction, operates within an overarching common law framework, and the implications of this cross-fertilization of systems.These three issues are explored by examining the development of various investor protection laws and structures over time in Canada (as opposed to examining investor protection laws at a point in time, as the LLSV studies do), and also by providing context to explain why certain rules and structures have been adapted and others, while economically efficient, may have been rejected. In Canada, as in many other jurisdictions, securities laws and securities structure have an impact on investor protection, as do banking laws and the banking regulatory framework and business culture. Not all investor protection mechanisms are located in the corporate statutes, as LLSV assumes. LLSV did not explore securities law rules, securities law structures, or banking laws. As well, the Canadian system is both structured in such a way and has evolved in such a way that investor protections are fairly consistent between the common law and civil law provinces, even when the civil law statute does not necessarily mimic the common law statute.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".