MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901021339

DE LA RENONCIATION A UNE FIDUCIE PERSONNELLE

2002· article· fr· W2901021339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jocelyn Dube

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlorRenunciationBeneficiaryTrust lawDeedExpress trustProperty (philosophy)InstitutionLaw and economicsTestamentary trustLawPolitical sciencePunitive damagesBusinessSociologyPhilosophyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Quebec civil law, a basic purpose is vital for the existence of a trust patrimony. Since the use made of the settlor's property must always meet this purpose, the existence of the trust patrimony is constantly under threat. Generally in personal trusts the purpose will be the protection of one or more beneficiaries. This article is based upon the general postulate that when the protection which is sought is no longer needed, the trust loses its purpose and, as a result, it must be terminated. Thus the crucial issue has to do with the effects of the renunciation of the beneficiary on the trust, an institution limited in time. The author reaches the conclusion that renunciation, in itself, does not terminate the trust, although it may well terminate it, especially if it denotes that the use made of the property no longer meets the purpose. The goal of this article is to propose, with regard to the decision to terminate a trust, an approach which will take into account the reality of the beneficiaries and at the same time will focus on the intent of the settlor, namely by presuming such intent in the interpretation of the trust deed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207