MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514673998 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139505994.014

The dilution of the trust

2013· book-chapter· en· W1514673998 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory S. Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilutionPsychologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust-like arrangements are appearing in civil law jurisdictions at an increasing rate. Two or three decades ago, such a development would have been unthinkable. But few, if any, of the new arrangements are true trusts, that is, trusts as the common lawyer would recognize them. These civilian arrangements are diluting the trust. For example, the Draft EU Directive on Protected Funds, which appeared in 2009, does not authorize the trust but rather what we might the “trust-lite.” This paper considers some reasons for the spread of these trust-like devices and discusses possible implications for common-law trusts.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.042
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207