MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410184355 · doi:10.1002/iir.1562

Personal bankruptcy reform in Switzerland: Transition from first‐century <i>Cessio</i> to twenty‐first century discharge

2025· article· en· W4410184355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason J. Kilborn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyTransition (genetics)Political scienceEconomic historyEconomicsLawChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Swiss personal bankruptcy procedure today bears a striking resemblance to the 2000‐year‐old ancient Roman form of debt relief called cessio bonorum. But not for long. Switzerland is finally ready to join its European neighbors in abandoning this outmoded Roman approach to overindebtedness, modernizing its personal insolvency law to make real debt relief more available, more effective, and more suitable to the 21st century. This article describes the surprising parallel between the ancient Roman procedure and current Swiss personal bankruptcy practice. It reveals why this antiquated approach is ineffective to achieve the modern goals of personal insolvency policy. It then describes how current law elsewhere pursues these goals, examining the increasingly liberal personal debt relief procedures in neighboring Austria, Germany, France, Italy, and Liechtenstein as comparative foils for an evaluation of the pending Swiss reform proposal. Judging by the formal, recorded reactions of the political parties and cantons to this well‐structured proposal, Swiss lawmakers seem poised to usher their personal bankruptcy law into the modern era at long last.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207