MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trustee Liability for Trust Claims and Trust Creditors’ Direct Access to Trust Assets

2025· book-chapter· en· W4417465864 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Popovici, Lionel Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreditorExpress trustTrust lawLiabilityBlind trustSecurity interestDebtorBalance (ability)Settlor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The conceptual structure of the trust is widely variable across legal systems. Trustees, who control the trust assets, may rightly create liabilities in the administration of the trust. The questions that arise include: who is the debtor of these liabilities? If these liabilities are not met, can the unpaid creditors access the trust assets? If so, how is this conceptualized and implemented? In answering these questions, which lie at the intersection of patrimony, personality, capacity, and property, the law has to balance multiple objectives. These include the protection of trustees from personal liability where that would be inappropriate; the protection of creditors, whose ability to access trust assets may conflict with the interests of beneficiaries; and of course the interests of the trust beneficiaries, whose wish to preserve the trust assets may conflict with the interests of both creditors and trustees. Although the different understandings of creditor access to trust assets may seem to be extremely technical, these divergences shed light on the fundamental nature of the trust in different legal systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207