MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566894245

Vienašaliai sandoriai paveldėjimo teisėje: valios išreiškimo forma ir teisinės pasekmės

2008· article· lt· W2566894245 on OpenAlex
Asta Dambrauskaitė

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJurisprudencija · 2008
Typearticle
Languagelt
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenunciationSuccessor cardinalEcological successionLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsPhilosophySociologyMathematicsTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the question of implementation of the right to inherit or, in other words, the excercise of the successoral option. With the opening of succession, every successor has the right to accept or to renounce the succession. This option can be exercised by way of concluding unilateral legal transactions, such as acceptance of succession and renunciation of succession. These two legal transactions are analysed in regard to the form of expression of will and the legal consequences they produce. As long as acceptance of succession may be express or tacit (deduced from some factual circumstances clearly attesting the will of an heir to inherit), renunciation of succession has to be express or result from the law which attaches legal consequences to the non-acceptance of succession, i.e. to silence on the part of an heir. The article also deals with the question relating to the time limits for excercing the successoral option. Under Lithuanian law, a successor has three months from the opening of the succession to deliberate and exercise his option. Author comes to a conclusion that this period could not be regarded as an extinctive time limit which extinguishes the subjective right of an heir to inherit. The question of revokation of unilateral legal transactions is analysed in the case of a renunciation of succession. While debate is taking place as to the possibility to revoke the renunciation of succession, the author of this article proposes to establish a rule allowing a successor, who has renounced, to retain the faculty of accepting succession if it has not been accepted by any other person or if the other heirs, who have accepted, do not object to such a revokation. In such a case the heir would take the succession in its actual condition at the time of revokation and without prejudice to the rights which third parties may have acquired to property of the succession. Author comes to a conclusion that the two concepts used in the text of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania – “renunciation of succession” and “non-acceptance of succession” – are not identical concepts and do not entail the same legal effects. If a successor dies before exercising his option, his own heirs acquire the right to deliberate and exercise the option instead of the successor who died. In the case of renunciation, the trasmition of the right to inherit is not passed onto the heirs of the successor who has renounced and who himself died. The article takes a comparative approach, presenting some of the solutions accepted in the legal systems of France, Quebec, Germany and Russia.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.263 · 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