MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145641793 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v14n3p74

Financial Restructuring and Asset Management Companies in International Financial Markets. Case Study of China: Lessons for Tanzania

2021· article· en· W3145641793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naumi Kassim Mohammed, Guo Dexiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringCorporationFinanceChinaBusinessInsolvencyAsset managementEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each company owns its “life cycle”. Throughout this cycle, companies use many factors that impact their business to track outcomes and shortcomings. Circumstances such as “financial restructuring” inaction and insolvency are the basic stages of a company’s lifecycle. The financial restructuring can be articulated as a deteriorating situation to circumstances in which the corporation is incapacitated in meeting its financial obligations, where the first signs of financial shortage are generally taken as a violation of trust/contract with suppliers and the payment of the dividends. This paper reviews the mechanism of restructuring of the bank by focusing on areas such as assets Management Companies (AMCs), their institutional characteristics and roles in the Chinese banking system, legal issues regarding banks’ operations in China and finally addresses the law and policy issues related to the disposal of NPLs in the banking system China. The finding is that, since this ‘phenomenon’ is not yet applicable to Tanzania, and also it is amidst the basic factors for Foreign Direct Investments in a country, Tanzania can look to China’s experience as a lesson, especially in the solicitation of this method without opposing political theory. That is because this feature of China’s unique legal system basing more on practicality rather than judicial power.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207