MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409476475 · doi:10.62381/e244816

Different Statues- On the Necessity of Separate Legislation of Personal and Corporate Bankruptcy Law

2024· article· en· W4409476475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongyuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic society and humanities. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyLegislationLawBusinessCorporate lawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsCorporate governanceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the framework of the existing bankruptcy legal system, there are a series of differences in the classification of bankruptcy law in various states, such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada. The focus of this “classification” is “whether it is necessary to distinguish between the the legal provisions of the personal bankruptcy and corporate bankruptcy in terms of legislation and justice, which is also one of the hot topics in legal circles. At least for now, a popular trend seems to be to dismiss such “distinction”, which is “looking the insolvency legal system as a whole”. If we just observe it from the perspective of legal logic, this view has its rationality on a certain extent. However, as long as we combine the legal theory with the practice, we will find that there are a series of crucial differences between personal and corporate bankruptcy both at the theoretical level and in the approach of reasoning when coping with the relevant cases (for example, corporate bankruptcy needs to be differentiated based on the size of the enterprises, personal bankruptcy should consider the basic survival of the debtor in addition to the repayment of the debts.) Such crucial differences make it impossible to forcibly unify these two (personal and corporate bankruptcy law) in one legal system; Otherwise, on the one hand, there will be the unnecessary costs of re-legislation. On the other hand, it will also cause unnecessary to the parties (whether individuals or enterprises) and judges to make judgments in judicial practice. Therefore, based on the above opinions, the essay will demonstrate the distinctions between personal and corporate bankruptcy law, with the aim of explaining a conclusion: personal bankruptcy and corporate bankruptcy are two completely different systems; Therefore, in terms of legislation, not only should these two not be unified, but also needs to be further distinguished on the basis of the existing law.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.030
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic society and humanities.Same topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207