MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in SOME countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system through the lens of Russian experience

2022· article· en· W4403475861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N.N. Parygina, E.L. Nevzgodina

Bibliographic record

VenueHerald of Omsk University Series Law · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineLens (geology)Legal doctrineLawPolitical scienceThrough-the-lens meteringOptometryMedicineOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Necessity for analysis of the substance and application experience of piercing the corporate veil doctrine in its homeland (in countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system) is based on the displays of the specified doctrine in Russian corporate legislation. Purpose. The purpose of this research is to identify topical (common to Russian Federation and countries outside the former Soviet Union) problems concerning doctrine of piercing the corporate veil realization, to develop balanced approach to them and to form an independent assessment of the named doctrine capacity in view of domestic legal system. Methodology. The main method used by authors is a comparative legal analysis. Methodological foundations of this research are as well represented by methods of dialectical materialism, formal logic, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, systematic and technical-juridical approaches. Research introduces the reader to the doctrine's provisions and court practice of the USA, Canada and Great Britain studied by authors in the original. Conclusions of this work are based on the specified materials. Results. The principle of separate responsibility of organization and its founders (members) unites legal systems of Russian Federation, Great Britain, USA and Canada. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is particularly widespread in the USA, it is also frequently used in Canada, far fewer - in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that connection, the vagueness of legal formulations related to the application of the doctrine (which is mostly observed in the USA and Canada) creates significant difficulties in terms of consistent court practice forming. Russian courts mainly refrain from using abstract non-codified doctrines in the absence of enacted law norms. Conclusion. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in Russian Federation manifests itself in several ways. However direct references to it in acts of Russian courts cannot be considered fully correct until the doctrine would be univocally fixed in domestic federal legislation or in needful directives of the supreme judicial authority. Such a perspective appears acceptable, nevertheless in order to make use of the doctrine effective it is important to explicitly elaborate on the grounds of its application.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHerald of Omsk University Series LawSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207