MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286924293 · doi:10.29173/alr1440

Resulting Trusts in Canada

2000· article· en· W2286924293 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestitutionConstructive trustUnjust enrichmentCertaintyPredictabilityTrust lawLaw and economicsKey (lock)Express trustBusinessConstructiveLawBlind trustPolitical scienceSociologyEpistemologyComputer scienceProcess (computing)Computer securityPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article looks at the resulting trust and its creation as a response to an event, that of unjust enrichment. The author looks at how and why the resulting trust arises; the role of key presumptions in determining whether or not a resulting trust is present; the role of intention in creating a resulting trust; and how all resulting trusts serve to effect restitution of unjust enrichment. The author argues that Canadian courts have focused on the constructive trust and its relationship with unjust enrichment, to the detriment of achieving understanding in this area. This has left the resulting trust on the sidelines, when it could more appropriately be used to create greater certainty and predictability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207