MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388094158 · doi:10.5539/ass.v19n6p53

Research on Relevant Issues Regarding the Creditor’s Right of Revocation in the Chinese Civil Code

2023· article· en· W4388094158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuhui Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevocationCreditorDebtorCivil codeBusinessLaw and economicsEnforcementDebtLawSubrogationPolitical scienceEconomicsActuarial scienceFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The creditor’s right of revocation is an important aspect of the debt preservation system. Regarding the legal effects of and approaches to realizing this right, there are various interpretations in the theoretical realm and inconsistencies in judicial practice. From a legal effects perspective, the creditor’s right of revocation in nature is not solely a right of formation, but also contains elements of a right of claim. In an action for the creditor’s revocation right, the creditor can simultaneously request the counterparty to assume the civil liability to the debtor as a result of the revocation of the act, such as returning property, providing compensation, or fulfilling overdue debts. In terms of the approaches to realizing the right, the creditors can directly apply for compulsory enforcement based on an effective judgment arising from their litigation or revocation litigation with the debtors to realize their rights against the debtors. Generally, there is no need for a combined exercise of the right of revocation with the subrogation right. However, in special circumstances, allowing the two rights to be exercised together can strengthen the protection for the creditors.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207