Juridical institute of the guardianship council in the Civil Code of the Czech republic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Juridical institute of the guardianship council in the Civil Code of the Czech Republic The thesis deals with the legal regulations of guardianship council under of the new Czech Civil Code. The Czech legal system has not experienced the institute of guardianship council before, which brings an uncertainty into the interpretation of the respective provisions. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the most important provisions of the legal regulation, demonstrate impact of these provisions in practice, including eventual uncertainties and eventually to suggest a solution of the problematic parts of the regulation. Due to the author's personal membership of a guardianship council is the work enriched by the personal experience from a real existence of the guardianship council. Another part of the thesis is focused on the analysis of the French legislation and legislation of the Canadian province Québec. The Czech Civil Code explanatory report directly admits the inspiration in the above mentioned codices of France and Québec. Analysis and the consecutive comparison of the above mentioned legislation with the Czech one shall bring the interpretative basis for the application of the legal regulation of the guardianship council under of the Czech Civil Code. The main output of this thesis is to...
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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".