Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTIONver the past 20 years, stores offering -fast cash have cropped up all across Canada.Pictures of overjoyed, upwardly-mobile young adults holding fans of banknotes greet the customers, assuring them that despite their poor credit histories, they, too, will come away with cash in their pockets and smiles on their faces.If only this were the whole story.Until recently, the payday loan industry was largely unregulated in Canada.This billion-dollar industry, often accused of predatory lending practices, 1 was left alone to charge exceptionally high interest rates with little government interference.Payday lenders routinely charged interest rates exceeding 10 times the legal limit.While it is true that some lenders have been found liable in class action lawsuits and some lenders have been refused the courts' assistance in enforcing these illegal contracts, not a single payday lender has ever been criminally prosecuted for usury. 2 Bill 14, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans), 3 is the latest effort by the Government of Manitoba to regulate the payday loan industry and, purportedly, protect consumers.Bill 14 was introduced in the House on 8 April 2009 and received Royal Assent on 11 June 2009.This paper provides an overview of the events giving rise to the Bill, outlines its key provisions, and describes its passage through the House.The paper concludes with an assessment of the Bill. 1
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".