On Improving the Procedure for Transferring Securities to Trust Management: An Analysis of Russian and Foreign Anti-Corruption Legislation
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
Introduction: the paper analyzes the regulation of the procedure for transferring to trust management of securities, as well as participation interests, shares in the authorized (pooled) capitals of organizations in accordance with the anti-corruption legislation in the Russian Federation and abroad. Purpose: to resolve the issue of improving the mechanism for transferring financial instruments of a civil servant to trust management. Methods: the methodological framework was formed by the methods of scientific cognition, including such main ones as the methods of consistency, analysis and comparative law. Results: the author identifies the legal gaps in the Russian legislation and suggests using positive foreign experience in the application of the anti-corruption legislation in the legal relations for the transfer of securities to trust management in such countries as the USA, Canada, Albania and Chile, as they have comprehensively developed the legal regulation of the institution of trust management of property of civil servants. Conclusions: the paper contains specific proposals for the implementation of foreign legislation into the current legislation of Russia, namely the establishment of a special state trust (trustee), the consolidation of his legal status, the possibility of prohibiting officials from owning and using their assets in a separate regulatory legal act of the federal level.
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