MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6986164147

The Ontario insolvency case. : in the Privy Council, Council Chamber, Whitehall, December 12th, 1893 : the attorney-general of Ontario vs. the attorney-general of Canada : argument of Mr. Blake of the appellant.

2014· article· en· W6986164147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)InsolvencyCommissionGovernment (linguistics)Bankruptcy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Act respecting Assignments and Preferences byInsolvent Persons i.In case any person, being at the time in insolvent circumstances, or unable to pay his debts in full, or knowing himself to be on the eve of insolvency, voluntarily or by collusion with a creditor or creditors gives a confession of judgment, cognovit actionem, or warrant of attorney to confess judgment with intent, in giving such confession, cognovit actionem, or warrant of attorney, to confess judgment to defeat or delay his creditors wholly or in part or with intent thereby to give one or more of the creditors of any such person a preference over his other creditors, or over any one or more of such creditors, every such confession, cogno<'it actionem, or warrant of attorney to confess judgment shall be deemed and taken to be null and void as against the creditors of the party giving the same, and shall be invalid and ineffectual to support any judgment or writ of execution.2. Every gift, conveyance, assignment, or transfer, delivery over or payment of goods, chattels, or effects, or of bills, bonds, notes, securities, or of shares, dividends, premiums, or bonus in any bank, company, or corporation, or of any other property, real or personal, made by a person at a time when he is in insolvent circumstances, or is unable to pay his debts in full, or knows that he is on the eve of insolvency, with intent to defeat, delay, or prejudice his creditors, or to give to any one or more of them a preference over his other creditors, or over any one or more of them, or which has such effect, shall, as against them, be utterly void.3. (1) Nothing in the preceding section shall apply to any assignment made to the sheriff of the county in which the debtor resides or cariies on business, or to another assignee resident within the Province of Ontario, with the consent of the creditors as hereinafter provided, for the purpose of paying ratably and proportionately, and without preference or pri- ority, all the creditors of the debtor their just debts; nor to any /><>na Jide sale or payment made in the ordinary course of trade or calling to innocent purchasers or parties ; nor to any payment of money to a creditor, nor to any bona Jide gift, conveyance, assignment, transfer, or delivery over of any goods, securities, or property of any kind, as above mentioned, which is made in consideration of any present actual bona Jide payment in money, or by way of security for any present actual bona Jide advance of money, or which is made in consideration of any present actual bona Jide sale or delivery of goods or other property ; provided that the money paid, or the goods or other property sold or delivered, bear a fair and reasonable relative value to the consideration thereof.(2) Every assignment for the general benefit of ere i which is not void under section 2 of this Act, but is not made to the sheriff, nor to any other person with the prescribed consent of creditors, shall be void as against a subsequent assignment which is in conformity with this Act, and shall be subject in other respects to the provisions of this Act until and unless a subsequent assignment is executed in accordance with this Act.(5) The debtor may in the first place, with the consent of a majority of his creditors having claims of $100 and upwards computed according to the provisions of section 19, make a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors to person other than the sheriff, and residing in this province.4. Form of assignment for general benefit of creditors.5. How claims are to rank.6. Appointment of assignee.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0320.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicLegal principles and applications→French-language works237,207→