Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the irreducible core concept in trust law, as well as the justifications for its further development and realisation throughout the prominent Commonwealth jurisdictions of Australia, Canada, England & Wales and New Zealand. A comparative analysis of the mandatory rules regime in United States trust law is also undertaken in order to compare and contrast the essential, juridical nature of the trust throughout the common law tradition. This thesis also pays particular attention to developments in the offshore practice of trusts and attempts to work through some of the contemporary challenges in trust law that strain the orthodox understanding of the trust. A comprehensive overview of the existing literature and international case law on the irreducible core approach to trusts is provided. Those lines of enquiry are then extended further in order to articulate more fully and precisely the irreducible core content of the trust. A relational theory of trusts is proposed in this thesis that draws heavily from the Hohfeldian schema of jural relations–an overview of which is also provided. The thesis then goes on to identify and explore each of the essential legal relations that comprise the irreducible core of the trust by applying the relational theory of trusts. A significant new development that is proposed in this thesis is that the irreducible core concept in trust law logically extends beyond the internal dynamic of trustee-beneficiary to embrace the externality of the trust, which reflects the important effects that trusts have on third parties. It is argued that each of the legal relations identified as forming part of the irreducible core of the trust serve the important juristic ambitions of ensuring that trustees are accountable and that trusts are enforceable as a matter of law and assist in the juridical classification of trusts within a rational and coherent structure of the private 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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".