Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frederic Maitland, the renowned historian of English law, called the trust 'the greatest and most distinctive achievement performed by Englishmen in the field of jurisprudence'. trust is certainly a great achievement. Yet is the trust distinctive? Much ink has been spilled on the question. On the one hand, 'trust-like' devices appear in other legal systems – for example, the Roman fideicommissum, the German Treuhand, and the Islamic waqf. On the other hand, none of these trust-like devices is precisely the same as the trust. This paper does not aim to settle the matter of the trust's distinctiveness but instead begins with a separate but related question: What can Anglo-American trust law contribute to other legal systems? More than a decade ago, this question was posed in two often-cited articles by Professors Henry Hansmann and Ugo Mattei. articles assess the 'special contribution' of the law of trusts, both within the U.S. legal system and from the perspective of comparative law. assessment is striking: that trust law's 'most important contribution' is what other scholars have called 'ring fencing': separating trust assets from the personal assets of the trustee, thereby defining the rights of third-party creditors. In contrast, the role of trust law in fiduciary governance is labeled 'relatively unimportant'. argument is noteworthy because much of Anglo-American trust law is fiduciary law, defining and regulating the trustee's powers and obligations with respect to trust administration. This paper, prepared for a symposium on The Worlds of the Trust at McGill University, offers some reflections on the current contributions, and the potential for future contributions, of trust fiduciary law within the Anglo-American law of trusts and in legal systems outside the common law.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".