Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breach advances a conceptual basis for understanding fiduciary relationships in a public law setting. Fiduciary concepts cut across traditional legal boundaries to encompass a broad array of legal relationships. Political theorists and legal commentators have extended these concepts to governments, acting as fiduciaries, and their populations. In practice, the courts are reticent to impose a fiduciary relationship at public law. However, two lines of authority support the existence of fiduciary principles that are unique to public law. The first draws on the Canadian experience with a sui generis form of fiduciary relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, and later commentary on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The second is judicial recognition that the relationship between local authorities and ratepayers is a fiduciary relationship. Breach argues that it is necessary to define fiduciary concepts that are unique to public law. This will avoid the uncertainty resulting from a sui generis classification, or worse, the consequences of conflating public law with private law fiduciary relationships. In doing so, he reassesses how the duty of loyalty can be understood in a public law context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".