Does the Trust fail to bring happiness to the rich because it was invented to manage poverty? Dangerous trust pitfalls, and--as yet--inadequate trust legislation, in the PRC. Singapore's express, resulting, remedial constructive, and Quistclose trusts; its admirable consideration of trust creditor rights; and its regrettable abolition of perpetuity and accumulation periods. Equitable remedies and conflict of law principles in Hong Kong. Taiwanese trusts.
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
The odd thing about the world’s greatest wealth management device is that it was invented to manage poverty. In his Equity, also the Forms of Action at Common Law: Two Courses of Lectures, Professor Maitland wrote of the earliest trust known to him:1 In the second quarter of the 13th century came hither [ie, to England] the Franciscan friars. The rule of their order prescribes the most perfect poverty: they are not to have any wealth at all. They differ from monks. The individual monk can own nothing, but the community of monks, an abbey, a priory, may own land and will often be very rich. On the other hand, friars’ priories are not to have property either individually or collectively. Still, despite this high ideal, it becomes plain that they must have at least some dormitory to sleep in. They have come as missionaries to the towns. The device is adopted of having land conveyed to the Borough community to the use of the friars.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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