Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This book, the second of two volumes, considers the rules which apply where a person dies either without leaving a valid will, or leaving a will which fails to dispose of all of the person's assets. Among the questions considered are the following. What is the nature of the rules for the disposal of the deceased's assets? Are they mechanical or is there an element of discretion? Are particular types of property dealt with in particular ways? Is there entitlement to individual assets (as opposed to money)? Do the rules operate a parentelic system or a system of some other kind? Are spouses treated more favourably than children? What provision is made for extra-marital children, for adopted children, for step-children? Does cohabitation give rise to entitlement? How are same-sex couples treated? Broader questions also arise of a historical and comparative nature. Where, for example, do the rules in intestate succession come from in particular legal systems? Have they been influenced by the rules in other countries? How are the rules explained and how are they justified? To what extent have they changed over time? What are the long-term trends? And finally, are the rules satisfactory, and is there pressure for their reform? As in the previous volume, the focus is on Europe, and on countries which have been influenced by the European experience such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States of America, Quebec, and the countries of Latin America. A further chapter is devoted to Islamic Law. The book opens with a chapter on Roman law and concludes with an assessment of the overall development of the law in the countries surveyed, and with some wider reflections on the nature and purpose of the law of intestate succession.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".