The tradition and the modernization of Adult Guardianship System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult guardianship system is an effective legal mechanism to help incapacitated adults who have lost the ability to make proper judgments and decisions on their own. Although China has taken reforms in adult guardianship laws since the 2010s, there are still some shortcomings in China's current adult guardianship laws and a systematic regime has not yet been formed. By contrast, Canada's adult guardianship system has developed from an inadequate one to a much-improved one by establishing its social security system and welfare service. This thesis makes an overall comparison between China's and Canada's adult guardianship regimes in three aspects, namely the guiding principles, the diversity of models and alternatives, and the procedural safeguards. Consequently, this thesis concludes the following possible ways China could refer to Canada's experience in this regime. First, systematic reforms in adult guardianship are required for China, since China lacks a global perspective in the legislative activities of adult guardianship. Second, the priority for China to take reforms is to understand the guiding principles rather than introduce the regime directly from the West, and also, China should figure out how to transplant these principles and specific institutions in the context of Confucianism. Third, China should pay more attention to the procedural safeguards in adult guardianship. At last, as to the substantive law in this field, China should diversify adult guardianship models and alternatives, and make the court-ordered adult guardianship the last resort to accommodate ward's various needs and maximize their self-determination capacity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".