Insolvency courts: General principles for systems design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article sets out general principles for designing the role of corporate insolvency courts. The authors identify four general considerations relevant to that design: (a) the sophistication and development of the relevant private markets and private law, (b) the applicable background corporate law principles, (c) the competence—in terms of experience and sophistication, capacity and resources, efficiency, and neutrality and lack of corruption—of the courts in question, and (d) the availability of alternative systems through forum and venue shopping or other forms of exit. Having identified these considerations, the article then explores how each affects the role that insolvency courts should play and the level of discretion courts should exercise. The authors also discuss the extent to which other procedural or insolvency provisions can substitute for judicial oversight and discretion.
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 | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".