Bibliographic record
Abstract
117 Abstract Title: Trust as a legal implant Subject of this thesis is a trust and its implementation in the Czech law. The fundamental question behind this thesis is whether it is possible to successfully implement common law trust in continental legal systems. In recent decades, a number of new legal institutions have appeared in Europe, falling into the category of so-called fiduciaries, which fulfil the functions of a trust. Therefore, it is appropriate to assess how to incorporate this institution into our law so that it does not disrupt the local legal system and at the same time does not lose its elementary attributes. The first chapter is focused on historical forms of trust in Europe, starting with Ancient Rome, through the Middle Ages to modern fiduciary forms in Czech law. The content of the second chapter is focused on a comparison of foreign forms of trust. In the first part, an analysis of the legal regulation of the common law trust and its historical predecessors is processed and a comparison is made with historical European trust forms. Other parts deal with the study and comparison of the current trust structures of some European countries, namely France, Germany and others. The subject of the third chapter is an analysis of the legal regulation of the trust of the Canadian province 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".