Review of Some Aspects of the Russian Legislation on Fiduciary Management of Property and Personal Funds through the Prism of the Law on Trusts in the United States and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enactment of new provisions of the Civil Code in the spring of 2022 on personal funds has increased the number of legally recognized instruments for management of property of others available in Russia (personal funds, investment funds of closed type and trust management agreements). This article reviews similarities between these three instruments and trusts formed under applicable laws of the United States and Canada. Such similarities suggest that certain legal mechanisms and approaches to legal issues developed in the United States and Canada should be taken into account for further development of the Russian law on personal funds and implementation of the law in practice. The article analyses certain aspects of the Russian legislation on management of property of others (legal status of each instrument, liability of the managers to the beneficiaries and liability of founders of personal funds for the obligations of such funds) and compares provisions of Russian law with relevant laws of the State of New York and the Province of Quebec.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it