DIGITAL FINANCIAL ASSETS THROUGH THE PRISM OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNDOCUMENTED SECURITIES
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
Abstract: digital reform puts on the agenda issues related to the legal regime of new digital phenomena – digital rights, including digital financial assets. Giving digital rights an independent legal status makes it necessary to differentiate the legal regime of digital financial assets and the legal regime of related objects of civil rights – non-documentary securities. The author focuses on the fact that the legal regime of digital financial assets is based on the legal regime of nondocumentary securities. The article makes general comments on the statuization of digital financial assets; identifies expert positions on the legal regimes of digital financial assets and non-documentary securities; examines doctrinal ideas about the relationship between the legal statuses of digital financial assets and non-documentary securities. As conclusions, the author made the following conclusions: a) the independent legal status of digital financial assets is mainly due to political motives; b) the general similarity of digital financial assets and nondocumentary securities is in the rights they certify; c) the differentiation of the phenomena being compared can be carried out on the basis of two criteria: 1) the presence/absence of an intermediary; 2) the architecture of the information system that makes up the infrastructure of the corresponding value.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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