Creation and termination of the management relationship; powers of the manager
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case John is a professional investment manager. Sam decides to make use of John's services after learning that he is a skilful manager. In John's office, Sam signs a document granting John full investment powers over a capital value of €2,000,000. The terms of the document indicate that John's powers are to be irrevocable for the term of five years. These powers enable John, inter alia, to buy and sell any kind of asset, including immovables. The document also provides that John will credit all the income produced by the managed capital to Sam's bank account. It stipulates that John will be entitled to deduct an annual fee, calculated as a percentage of the capital value of the managed assets. Sam then writes a cheque payable to John for €2,000,000. Alternative 1 In the second year of their relationship, Sam reads in a newspaper that John is implicated in the international trafficking of stolen works of art. He does not know whether the allegations are true but he decides to terminate their relationship. He communicates this to John. He demands restitution of the managed assets, as well as a full account of the investments that have been made. Upon John's refusal, Sam sues, asking for: (a) a judicial declaration that the relationship is terminated; (b) a remedy enjoining John from entering into any further transaction related to the assets; (c) a full audit of the previous period; (d) restitution of the managed assets; and (e) damages.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.011 |
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".