Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trust serves a variety of important commercial functions, yet remains under-analyzed and under-utilized. In both Canada and the United States, the lack of dedicated organizational law has diminished the commercial appeal and utility of business trusts, inspiring recent reforms through draft uniform legislation - the Canadian Uniform Income Trusts Act and the American Uniform Statutory Trust Entity Act. The author critically reviews and assesses the two uniform statutes. He argues that they reflect markedly different views on the goals of organizational law. The Canadian legislation supposes that the trust should be a fixed organizational form subject to extensive mandatory regulation. It reflects the relatively modest goals of improving the governance of income trusts and resolving uncertainty over the applicability of ordinary trust law to income trusts while avoiding rules that inhibit value and tax arbitrage. The American legislation has more complex and ambitious goals. It creates an entirely new entity intended to offer efficiency gains by virtue of its extraordinary adaptability to different business purposes as well as market and settlor preferences. The author offers a functional assessment of the uniform legislation, arguing that each statute has mixed success in meeting its legislative objectives. The author also offers normative evaluation of the uniform legislation, focusing on positions taken on key normative questions of organizational law. The Canadian statute gives significant protection to investors but not other stakeholders. The American statute offers flexibility at the cost of accountability, with significant deficits in investor and stakeholder protection.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".