Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Introduction briefly reviews the history of the comparative study of trusts law and trusts practice. Since the early 20th century, many authors have published work concerned with the comparative study of trusts. Much of the early work was published by scholars from civil law jurisdictions, who were curious about common law trusts and interested in receiving them, or something like them, in the laws of scholars’ home jurisdictions. Civilians’ study of the common law trust led to the development of several trust models under the civil law, notably the ‘trust as special contract’ model, now enacted into law in dozens of civilian jurisdictions, and Lepaulle’s ‘patrimoine d’affectation’, later received into the laws of Quebec, Uruguay, and the Czech Republic. In the 21st century comparative trust law came full circle, with common law-based scholars considering civilian trust models as potentially superior to the traditional common law analysis of trusts. The introduction then explains the method chosen for composing this Handbook. It concludes with reflections on the likely future course(s) of the comparative study of trusts, noting the increasing influence of offshore jurisdictions’ laws of trusts on trust laws’ worldwide development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.466 | 0.254 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".