Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I discuss four recent Australian cases: the Hamersley Iron case; In the Matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty. Limited; Allied Distribution Finance Pty. Ltd. v. Samwise Holdings Pty. Ltd. and R.e. Amerind Pty. Ltd. In the Hamersley Iron case, the main issue was whether the granting to A of a PPSA security interest in an account owing by B to C destroys mutuality between B and C so as to preclude B from asserting a right of set-off in C’s liquidation. In the OneSteel case, the issue was whether the inclusion of the grantor’s Australian Business Number (ABN) in the financing statement, rather than the Australian Company Number (ACN), as the statute requires, invalidates the registration. Samwise concerned the application of the purchase-money security interest (pmsi) priority rules in Australian PPSA, s.62 to a pmsi refinancier. In R.e. Amerind, the issue was whether, when parties contract for the supply of goods from time to time on title retention terms, there is: (1) a single security agreement which comes into effect once the requirements of offer and acceptance have been satisfied; or (2) a succession of separate security agreements which come into effect at the time of each new order or delivery. Hamersley Iron relied heavily on Canadian and New Zealand case law while in OneSteel, the court was influenced by New Zealand authority. By contrast, in Samwise there was no reference to any overseas authorities, even though the facts of the case were almost identical to the facts in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal case, Macphee Chevrolet Buick GMC Cadillac Ltd. v. SWS Fuels Ltd. The concern in R.e. Amerind was with an issue that is peculiar to Australian law and so there was no occasion for the courts to consider Canadian or New Zealand authorities. Nevertheless, all four cases raise interesting and novel points which make them instructive in other PPSA jurisdictions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".