Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In June 1982 the delegates to a Special Commission that was to prepare for the Fifteenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law met for the first time. They represented twenty-one states which were members of the Hague Conference, a number that was to swell to thirty-two at the meeting of the Fifteenth Session in October 1984. The common law states represented were the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canada. There were observers of various international organisations both to the Commission and to the Fifteenth Session. The task of the Special Commission, set by the Fourteenth Session in 1980, was to design a Convention for presentation to the Fifteenth Session on the applicable law to govern trusts and on the recognition to be accorded the trust by a state that ratifies the Convention. The text of a draft Convention was completed in October 1983, and a year later, following a full consideration of this text and significant changes, the final text of the Convention was adopted by the Fifteenth Session held in October 1984. The Convention came into force on 1 July 1985. The present writer, representing Canada, was one of those delegates. This chapter looks back to the Convention that the Fifteenth Session adopted, and to the reception of the Convention during the following twenty years. It is intended as an entirely personal view of both events, the international agreement and its reception. There is one caveat.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.043 |
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".