The French approach to entrepreneurial failure: A profound paradigm shift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract From the long‐standing disapproval attached to the "bankruptcy" of the entrepreneur, through the contested recognition of the right not to pay his debts, the French law of insolvency has evolved to gradually take into account the fate of the man in entrepreneurial failure. Thus, the objective of the rebound of the entrepreneur is part of the reforms of the law of companies in difficulty for several years: introduction of professional recovery leading to the cancellation of debts, acceleration of the judicial liquidation procedure, limitation of the scope of the guarantees offered to creditors and reduction of the weight of sanctions. Beyond the measures, the evolution of the law of companies in difficulty reflects a real mutation in the French perception of entrepreneurial failure. A paradigm shift is taking place where the culture of failure gradually gives way to a culture of rebound, so that the entrepreneur can be entitled to a "second chance". The article focuses on the legal mechanisms of the rebound of the individual entrepreneur after a judicial liquidation under French law. The objective is to demonstrate that a paradigm shift is taking place where the culture of failure is gradually giving way to a culture of rebound. If the change has appeared for 30 years, it appears more blatantly for 3 years, whether in European or French law. However, many economic stigmas persist, such as indicators in the banking file of companies or data on judicial liquidation that remain publicly available. In order to promote the rebound of the entrepreneur, we propose in particular the establishment of a right to be forgotten.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".