RESEARCH CONCERNING THE LAND LEASE SITUATION IN TIMISOARA SINCE THE ISSUE OF THE LEASE LAW NR. 16/1994 TO PRESENT TIME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on almost each article studying its aspects and finally including a comparison between the Romanian system of land lease and the one from the Republic of Moldavia, Canada and several European Union states. The necessity of adopting the Lease Law nr.16/1994 appeared from the above-presented reasons and also as a cause of the lack of state interventions in agriculture. This law created the possibility for a series of Land Law beneficiaries to use all the land had in property, beneficiaries that practically could not work the agricultural land restored into their property. Although, neither the Civil Code, nor the present law defines the lease contract, it can be deduced from the art. 1- 5 provisions that this contract is a variant of the renting contract for goods used in agricultural exploitations, fact that is actually mentioned in art. 1413 from the Civil Code, the notion being also called the renting of rural estate. Key words: intervention, contract, rent, rural estate, land law In 1994, immediately after the occurrence of the Lease Law nr. 16/1994, only three lease contracts were registered at the city hall, the lease period for the legal entity being only one year, as shown in the table below: Tabel 1 The lease contract’situation in Timişoara in 1994 The total number of lease contracts Legal entity/individual person Leased Area (ha) Lease period 3- persoană fizică 4, 6 3 ani- persoană fizică 4,6 3 ani- persoană juridică 240 1 an The year 1995 marked a significant increase in the number of registered lease contracts in comparison with the previous year, one reason for this aspect being the implementation of the Land Lease. It should be noticed that there was no individual person to register any lease contract at the City Hall, all of them coming from legal entities or from The Teaching Resort belonging to the University of
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".