Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationship between trust and inheritance law Abstract The aim of this thesis is to identify a common line between testamentary trust funds and inheritance law while also comparing individual legal institutes within these legal frameworks. The thesis first discusses the origins of the legal regulation of trust funds in the Czech Civil Code, which was inspired by the Quebec fiducie. The source of legal regulation, particularly Quebec case law, could serve as a guideline for decisions made by Czech courts. A trust fund is not considered a legal person, and the thesis therefore emphasizes that it should not be equated with a legal entity, as this institution provides more flexible options for managing assets. The concept of a testamentary trust fund raises many questions among legal professionals, particularly in notarial practice, for which there are still no clear answers. This thesis, therefore, explores possible answers to questions such as whether a testamentary trust fund forms part of an estate, who assumes the position of heir within a testamentary trust fund, and what the differences are between the positions and rights of a beneficiary and an heir. The legal regulation of the protection of forced heirs is particularly crucial in this context, as excluding a testamentary trust fund from an estate...
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".