Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procedural Aspects of a Trust Fund Abstract The thesis focuses on the analysis of procedural aspects of the Czech trust fund, which remains a relatively novel legal construct within the Czech legal system, having drawn inspiration from the Québécois fiducie and the Anglo-American trust. In accordance with its objective, the thesis identifies problematic areas in the current legal regulation and practice, arising primarily from the absence of legal personality of the trust fund, and proposes possible solutions. As a non- subject, the trust fund does not appear in legal proceedings in its own name but is represented by the trustee or other associated persons, which gives rise to a number of specific procedural situations that must be addressed. The thesis systematically examines the procedural standing of the trust fund in civil proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Act on Special Judicial Proceedings. It analyses issues such as procedural succession, the plurality of trustees, the absence or procedural inactivity of the trustee, and proposes the concept of a so-called "trust unit" as a sui generis procedural subject composed of the trustee and the trust fund administered by them. The author considers this concept a functional tool for capturing the specific procedural position that lacks a...
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".