Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of parental authority introduced to Romanian legislation by the New Romanian Civil Code is totally distinct from the notion of custody specific to other domestic legislations both in theory, as in practical consequences implied. The purpose of the article is to make a comparative presentation of the two different notions mentioned above, as they are (still) constantly confused, even though a significant period of time has elapsed since the New Romanian Civil Code entered into force. Confusion comes mainly from the fact that Romanian Civil Code was inspired from Quebec Civil Code, where the legislation formally refers to the notion of parental authority, but in substance this notion presents nevertheless the caharacteristics of the concept of custody. Therefore, the objectives of the present study are to identify the content and forms regulated in legislation for each of the notions, by studying legal provisions relevant for parental authority in Romanian legislation, respectively custody in national legislations of other states. As a result, the main theoretical resemblances and differences between the two concepts will be decelated. Furthermore, the study will identify the practical consequences generated by their common points (important decisions are to be taken by agreement of both parents, whereas routine decisions can be made individually) and main differences (domicile of the child/alternate domicile and rights of access).
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".