Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the new adult guardianship system, whether or not an adult has the capacity to do legal transactions is, in principle, to be determined at the event of making relevant decisions, except the cases where a full guardian is appointed or where a limited guardian is appoint with the power of consent to legal transactions of a person under limited guardian reserved on a guardian. The Civil Code provisions related to the capacity to do legal transactions therefore contradict those of Civil Procedure Act, where any adult under guardianship is deprived of legal capacity to litigation unless the person under limited guardianship is allowed to do legal transactions alone(Article 55 Civil Procedure Act). Since the new Adult Guardianship Act 2011 by way of the revision of Korean Civil Code came into force as from 1st July 2013, it has been imminent to revise the Civil Procedure Act provisions relevant to the litigation capacity of mentally or intellectually disabled adults. At the same time, it has been expected for the UN CRPD provisions relevant to the protection of persons with impairments to decision making abilities, especially due to dementia, developmental disabilities, mental illness and brain injury, to be reflected to the revised legislation of Civil Procedure Act. The Draft Amendments of Civil Procedure Act, prepared by the Ministry of Justice, reflects such a demand to the effect that the provisions of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are as much as possible respected unless they are incompatible with Korean current civil law regime. This paper describes the main features of the draft Amendments of Civil Procedure Act from the perspective of the protection of human rights of elderly and disabled persons, with comparison of civil procedure laws of Germany, England and Canadian Ontario.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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".