Comparative analysis of access to patented HIV/AIDS pharmaceutical medicines through the Canadian and EU TRIPS flexibilities measures: are they efficacious or overly burdensome and ineffective measures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, the South African retirement fund industry has experienced major regulatory changes. These changes were aimed at imposing a higher standard of governance on the boards of trustees governing various pension funds. As such, there has been a debate within the retirement fund industry as to whom the board, as the governing and managing body of the retirement fund, is accountable. South African courts and tribunals adjudicating pension fund related disputes and the retirement industry at large seem to share the view that the board of trustees is accountable to both the fund and its members. In that the board of trustees owes fiduciary duties to both the fund and its members, meaning that the board is required to act in the best interest of the fund and its members. However, in this paper I demonstrate that the boards of trustees of South African Pension Funds are accountable to and owe fiduciary duties only to the fund they serve and not members of those funds. Furthermore, I submit that at the very best the board owes a duty of good faith towards the members of the fund. In order to substantiate my submissions, I distinguish the legal position relating to trust law from the law relating to retirement funds in South Africa.KEYWORDS: Retirement Fund, Board of Trustees, Best Interests of Members, Pension Fund Act, Fiduciary Duties, 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".