An examination of the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in Canadian mergers & acquisitions practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disputes can arise during commercial transactions no matter how well planned the business was or how comprehensively drafted the contract signed between the parties. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, substituting litigation, have become popular for helping parties resolve disputes amicably, among other advantages. The purpose of this study is to consider opinions of academic scholars on the use of ADR processes in commercial transactions. Particularly, the extent of use of these processes for resolving disputes arising from mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in Canada is tested using a qualitative research methodology with participants (M&A practitioners and ADR specialists) from different provinces across Canada. The study evaluates the use of mediation and arbitration – both being the major types of ADR processes – and reveals the near non-existent use of ADR processes in M&A transactions including the reasons thereof. Finally, this thesis suggests ways by which ADR can be better utilized for M&A disputes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it