MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100112228

001-34490: Request for Relief from Exchange Act Reporting

2014· article· en· W7100112228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLegal Cases and Commentary
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationCommissionQuarter (Canadian coin)EstateCapital (architecture)Companies ActReal estateLimited company
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Company”), we hereby submit a request for relief from various reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The Company respectfully requests that the staff (the “Staff’) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) grant the Company relief from any further reporting requirements under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (commencing with relief from the requirement to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014), provided that the Company undertakes to disclose any material developments relating to the liquidation and dissolution of the Company by filing Current Reports on Form 8-K. I. BACKGROUND Historical Activities The Company was incorporated in the State of Kansas in 1996 under the name SLH Corporation as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Seafield Capital Corporation (“Seafield”) and initially held certain real estate assets, energy assets, and miscellaneous securities, including a 32.5 % interest in Syntroleum Corporation (“Syntroleum”). In 1997, the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), and attendant preferred share purchase rights (the “Rights”) were distributed to

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0250.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1530.170

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal Cases and Commentary→French-language works237,207→