MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389201299 · doi:10.1002/iir.1522

An empirical snapshot of English corporate insolvencies

2023· article· en· W4389201299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asad A. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreditorInsolvencyBankruptcyDebtActuarial scienceEmpirical examinationBusinessDistribution (mathematics)Order (exchange)Empirical researchAccountingEconomicsFinanceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The article presents an empirical study of English corporate insolvencies initiated between December 2016 and December 2018. The research focuses on creditors' voluntary liquidations (‘CVLs’), the most frequently occurring insolvency procedure. It also looks at a few administrations and compares findings with CVLs to analyse which procedure may lead to better returns to creditors. The article highlights key statistics such as the average costs of procedures and the impact of the prescribed part fund on distribution. Further, the study assesses HMRC's potential debt recovery following its return as a preferential creditor and discusses whether Crown preference is justified. Given that data analysis on the practicalities of distribution during insolvency is lacking, the empirical study arguably helps fill a gap in the literature. Essentially, the article provides quantitative data on the practicalities of distribution and assesses the impact of the order of priority on repayment to 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207