Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the international divergences existing in the design of insolvency law, there is a common feature of insolvency proceedings that, to a greater or lesser extent, is somehow universal: insolvency proceedings are generally costly and lengthy processes. For that reason, it is not surprising that a significant body of the literature on insolvency law deals with different mechanisms to make insolvency proceedings more efficient. This article examines how technology can contribute to that goal. To that end, it starts by reviewing how countries are deploying, or can deploy, technology in different aspects and stages of insolvency proceedings and how such digitalization of insolvency proceedings can significantly reduce the costs and length of insolvency proceedings. The article also examines how artificial intelligence (AI) and data analytics tools can be used for many other insolvency‐related purposes that range from facilitating investigations, negotiations and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in insolvency to providing advice and enabling the early detection of financial distress. The article concludes by examining how AI is expected to change the design and practice of insolvency law as well as the challenges that need to be addressed for a successful transition towards a technology‐driven insolvency system.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".