A magyar bizalmi vagyonkezelés egyes külföldi országok szabályozásainak tükrében
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of the 20th century, several Eastern European countries showed strong interest in the Anglo–Saxon institution of the trust. The main reason for this is attributable to the advantages of the trust offered for the economy. Legislators in some Eastern European countries tried to cope with problems relating to the adoption of a trust-like legal institution. As the result of their efforts, the civil code of Russia (1995/96), Lithuania (1996/2000), Georgia (2002), Romania (2011), the Czech Republic (2012) and Hungary contains regulations that resemble the trust. These laws vary significantly because the Georgian model remains on a contractual level along with the Russian law. In Lithuania it is possible to establish a so-called right of trust, which is an independent item in rem right. The Romanian regulation is very similar to the French fiducie, while the Czech trust law was worked out on the basis of the Québec model. The Hungarian regulation was drawn up on the basis of the model of the trust in English law and that of the Treuhand in German 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.007 |
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".