Kritik af gældende ret om udbetaling af forsikring og pension ved død samt forslag til nye regler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Med afsæt i en analyse af gældende ret peger forfatterne i artiklen på en række uhensigtsmæssigheder ved det gældende system for udbetaling af forsikring og pension ved død. Det konkluderes, at de nugældende regler i forsikringsaftalelovens § 104 /pensionsopsparingslovens § 4 om anfægtelse af en udbetaling på baggrund af urimelighed ikke kan antages at finde anvendelse, hvor udbetaling sker til nærmeste pårørende. Dette medfører, at meddelelseskravet i forsikringsaftalelovens § 102, stk. 3 /pensionsopsparingslovens § 2, stk. 3, i praksis alene kan antages at finde anvendelse i det begrænsede antal tilfælde, hvor der aktivt er indsat en begunstiget og hvor afdøde efterlader sig ægtefælle og/eller livsarvinger. Ud fra en retspolitisk betragtning argumenteres for, at der er særligt behov for at nytænke reglerne for fordeling, anfægtelse, begunstigelse samt ophæve indskrænkninger i den kreds, der kan være nærmeste pårørende i en skattebegunstiget pensionsordning. Forfatterne fremkommer afslutningsvis med forslag til et nyt system, som tilnærmer forsikrings- og pensionsreglerne de arveretlige regler - såvel materielt som formelt.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.123 | 0.041 |
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".