Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines a crucial aspect of the legal framework governing the rights of recourse between co-guarantors. It focus on the Chinese context while drawing insightful comparisons with France, Germany, and the United States. A comprehensive analysis of the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the Supreme People's Court interpretations reveals inconsistencies and ambiguities that necessitate further examination. To enhance the discourse, the paper contrasts Chinese regulations with those of France, Germany, and the United States, elucidating disparate approaches and potential best practices. This comparative analysis not only identifies the strengths and weaknesses of China's current stance but also suggests avenues for improvement. By examining foreign legal systems, the study identifies areas where Chinese law could be refined to better align with international standards and principles of fairness. The findings emphasize the necessity for the establishment of a more coherent and equitable legal framework in China, one that provides clear and unambiguous guidelines for co-guarantors seeking recourse. It is recommended that steps be taken to address the discrepancies identified and to advocate for reforms that promote legal clarity and enhance the protection of co-guarantors' rights. The paper concludes with a recommendation for comprehensive legislative reform, emphasizing the importance of balancing the interests of all parties involved in co-guarantee arrangements in order to foster a more robust and internationally compatible legal environment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".