MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767354740

Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets: A Review of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada's Proposed Uniform Act and Comparable American Model Legislation

2017· review· en· W2767354740 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciaryLegislationJurisdictionLawCommissionBusinessPolitical scienceDuty
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No jurisdiction in Canada has yet enacted comprehensive legislation regarding fiduciary access to the digital assets of an individual who has died, become incapacitated, or has appointed an attorney or other representative. In August, 2016, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (ULCC) adopted a uniform Act on fiduciary access to digital assets (ULCC Uniform Act). This paper discusses why there may be a need for legislation, and then examines the most important elements of the ULCC Uniform Act. The Act, which tends to favour fiduciary access and media neutrality, is compared throughout the paper with the two American Acts prepared by the American Uniform Law Commission. The first American Act was adopted in 2014 and then withdrawn due to concerns voiced by internet service providers and civil liberty groups regarding privacy issues, and the other, a revised version, was subsequently adopted in 2015.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.210 · 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