MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7003639676

Quinquagenaries

2022· article· en· W7003639676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeaseStatutory lawPersonal propertySecurity interestCommon lawProperty (philosophy)Uniform Commercial CodeProperty law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is part of a symposium to mark the 50th anniversary, or quinquagenary, of the Dalhousie Law Journal. The invitation to participate in the symposium asked authors to reflect on developments in their field over the past 50 years. My field is the law of secured transactions and, as it happens, the Canadian Personal Property Security Acts (PPSAs) are approaching their own quinquagenary. There have been numerous statutory and case law developments over the past 50 years, but one of the most remarkable turn of events is the influence the Canadian PPSAs have had on the reform of secured transactions laws in other countries, including New Zealand and Australia. Australia and New Zealand have already built up a substantial body of PPSA case law and literature which in part tracks Canadian learning, but in part also deals with issues that have not been as much discussed in Canada. One issue that has received a good deal of attention, particularly in Australia, is the PPSA’s application to true lease agreements. In contrast to Article 9 of the United States Uniform Commercial Code, the Canadian PPSAs apply not only to security (finance) leases, but also to true leases that are for a term of more than one year. The Australian and New Zealand PPSAs take more or less the same approach. The purpose, in part, is to avoid litigation on the true lease-finance lease distinction in determining the application of the statute. This article, drawing on Canadian, Australian and New Zealand learning, aims to show that the need for drawing the distinction persists to a greater extent than is commonly supposed.\nCet article fait partie d’un symposium organisé pour marquer le 50e anniversaire du Dalhousie Law Journal. Dans l’invitation à participer au symposium, il était demandé aux auteurs de réfléchir aux développements survenus dans leur domaine au cours des 50 dernières années. Mon domaine est le droit des transactions garanties et, comme par hasard, les lois canadiennes sur les sûretés mobilières (LSM) approchent de leur propre quinquennat. Il y a eu de nombreux développements législatifs et jurisprudentiels au cours des 50 dernières années, mais l’une des tournures d’événements les plus remarquables est l’influence que les LSM canadiennes ont eue sur la réforme des lois sur les transactions garanties dans d’autres pays, notamment en Nouvelle-Zélande et en Australie. Ces deux pays ont déjà constitué un corpus substantiel de jurisprudence et de littérature sur les LSM qui suit en partie l’apprentissage canadien, mais qui traite aussi de questions qui n’ont pas été autant discutées au Canada. Une question qui a reçu beaucoup d’attention, particulièrement en Australie, est l’application de la LSM aux véritables contrats de location. Contrairement à l’article 9 du United States Uniform Commercial Code, les LSM canadiennes s’appliquent non seulement aux baux adossés à des sûretés (financement), mais aussi aux baux véritables d’une durée de plus d’un an. Les LSM de l’Australie et de la Nouvelle-Zélande adoptent plus ou moins la même approche. L’objectif, en partie, est d’éviter les litiges relatifs à la distinction entre le bail véritable et le bail financier pour déterminer l’application de la loi. Le présent article, qui s’appuie sur les enseignements du Canada, de ’Australie et de la Nouvelle-Zélande, vise à montrer que la nécessité d’établir cette distinction persiste dans une plus large mesure qu’on ne le croit généralement.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5030.191

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207