MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603622038 · doi:10.54648/erpl2016060

Trust as a Legislative Challenge: Bipolar Relation vs Quasi-Corporate Status? Basic Trust Models in Legal Practice, Theory, and Legislation

2016· article· en· W2603622038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karsten Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of Private Law/Revue européenne de droit privé/Europäische Zeitschrift für Privatrecht · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCzechMandateLegislatureExpress trustGermanTransparency (behavior)LawTrust lawLegal practicePolitical scienceLaw and economicsCivil codeBusinessLegislationSimple (philosophy)SociologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is a multifaced and enigmatic legal construction. The recent reform of trust law in the Czech Republic is based on a very demanding legal concept, obviously linked with the “fiducie” model in the Law of Québec. In contrast, the legal community in Germany has to cope with trust issues on the basic of very few and simple Civil Code provisions under the law of obligations. This concept has, however, has proved to be fruitful producing three elementary types of trust constructions: (a) simple bipolar mandate agreements, (b) trust agreements in the benefit of third persons, and (c) complex trust organisations serving as quasi-legal bodies. The Czech trust law, recently enacted in ss. 1400 et seqq., is appropriate for the third (most complicated) type c of trust construction. It may, however, fall short as far as simple trust agreements (a, b) are concerned. The German law, on the other hand, has to cope with a noticeable drawback regarding type c: the lack of transparency of trust based quasi-entities.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Review of Private Law/Revue européenne de droit privé/Europäische Zeitschrift für PrivatrechtSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207