Bibliographic record
Abstract
Closed legal systems are gone in modern world, “mixed” legal systems have become the norm. That has made so-called “transplants” easier but, contrary to a widely held view, legal institutions cannot be transplanted. English trust rules even less, for they are not a coherent set of rules. The British attempted to legislate on trusts for their colonies, for instance for Ceylon (the present-day Sri Lanka), and were thus obliged to be coherent. That made it necessary to introduce new legal concepts with unforeseeable consequences. A wave of legislation followed the adoption of the convention “On The Law Applicable To Trusts And On Their Recognition” by the 15th session of the Hague Conference on private international law (1985); it gave birth to the “international model” of trusts that quickly became the favourite setting of the rich and ultra-rich. Jersey in the Channel Islands was the leading jurisdiction, many others followed but it was not until the establishment of the International Finance Centres in the Gulf and later in Kazakhstan where “the laws of England and Wales” are taken as a source of law and local courts are staffed by former English judges or in any event by lawyers brought up in the common law that a proper transplant of the English trust took place. A totally different legal setting witnessed attempts to create imitations that had to run against well-established civil law conceptual attitudes that did not allow the existence of more than one patrimony per person or the segregation of assets within one person’s patrimony. In 2022 France decreed that each businessman is automatically the owner of two patrimonies; that open the way to a radical re-thinking of civil law notions. Québec and Louisiana are taken as examples of civil law legislation on trusts but Québec has followed its own idea that the assets that form the object of a fiducie belong to nobody, while Louisiana’s Trust Code is a deft admixture of civil law and common law elements based on the civilian notion of “fiduciary”. Luxembourg, France and other civil law countries are then examined: the focus then is on South Africa and Scotland, two countries which have a common past in a shared period of the European ius commune and a common present in being both orphaned from a cultural lineage that provided answers to current matters by drawing on Roman law. Now they both solve the problem of the patrimony by holding that a trustee has more than one patrimony, his own and then one for each trust of which he is the trustee.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".