Comparative Research on China and Taiwan’s Legal Systems: From the View of the Agent Right of Daily Household Matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The agent right of household matters is one of an important aspect of personal rights and also a personal interest that cannot be ignored. As early as in late Qing dynasty, Chinese legal workers had paid attention on the agent right of household matters. Related legislations can be found in Civil Law Draft of Qing Dynasty (Family Chapter) and the Civil Law Draft of the Republic of China. Due to the social traditions at that time, these laws just stipulated wife’s agent right but not the husband’s. Until in the 1930 Civil Law issued by Nanking National Government, the provisions governing spouses’ rights were transplanted from foreign civil laws and the system of agent right of household matters was first time established. However, because China followed Soviet’s legal mode after the founding of the state, the agent right of household matters was replaced by marital property regime. Ever since that time Taiwan and Chinese mainland’s legal provisions on this right differs. The main aim of this paper is to provide some useful research for settling continuous disputes in modern society through comparative study on China and Taiwan’s agent right of household matters legislation emphasis, subjects, limitations, and burdens.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".