Bibliographic record
Abstract
The law of corporate reorganisations has a bright future-with a few storm clouds.To understand where we are going and the challenges ahead, it is useful to look to the past to get our bearings.Many of the difficulties we face arise out of fault lines embedded in the law a long time ago. | TRADITIONAL PRELUDES TO REORGANISATIONIn the United States, two separate traditions gave rise to modern reorganisation practice.1 Each tradition occupied its own domain and was controlled and dominated by its own creditor constituency.One tradition began with what were called 'friendly adjustments'.2 At the end of the nineteenth century, large wholesalers, such as Marshall Field and Carson Pirie Scott, sold dry goods to small retailers across the country on credit.3 Each of these had a large management team, and this team included a new breed of professionals-those who specialized in approving and collecting the debts these retailers owed.The credit men, as these professionals called themselves, formed a tight community.They were white collar, but not exactly upper crust.When small retailers faltered, they often owed money to many different wholesalers.The credit men who worked for the large wholesalers would coordinate their efforts to make the best of a bad situation.The credit men would shut down a dry goods business and liquidate its assets if the business had no future, but when the business was viable and the owner worthy, the credit men would agree to restructure the debt and give the business a second chance.Sometimes, these professionals had to deal with holdouts, troublesome local creditors who sought to make side deals with debtors or otherwise take actions contrary to the interests of creditors as a group.The credit men therefore welcomed and indeed were largely responsible for the 1898 Bankruptcy Act. 4 1 I discuss these two branches of reorganisation law in Douglas G. Baird, The Unwritten Law of Corporate
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
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".