Hidden Fallacies in Corporate Law and Financial Regulation:Reframing the Mainstream Narratives
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
Challenge your understanding of corporate, securities, and financial law and regulation with this ground-breaking book.<br/>Featuring incisive research from preeminent scholars in the field, this seminal work interrogates long-standing assumptions and beliefs that have remained unexamined for decades.<br/>Taking a novel approach, the book serves as both a conceptual 'deconstruction' and a foundation for future research directions. Each chapter delves deep into the often-overlooked origins, mechanics and implications of outdated or misleading concepts (termed 'fallacies') that form the backbone of contemporary corporate and securities laws, financial regulations and related domains.<br/>Beyond simply identifying these fallacies, the authors illustrate the profound implications of recalibrating our analytic perspectives. By expanding the spectrum of inquiry and moving along multiple continuums – such as public to private, micro to macro, transactional to structural, individual to systemic, and static to dynamic – this volume underscores the transformative potential of re-envisioning the fundamentals of these fields. An essential read, this book promises to be a catalyst for change and a must-have for anyone committed to staying at the forefront of law and policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.006 |
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