Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiduciary in comparative context Abstract In this doctor thesis, the author is focused on explaining the historical context of the trust institute development, followed by comparison between jurisdiction in England, Lichtenstein, France, Germany and the Czech Republic. The author also points out differences between traditional common law and continental law systems. Even though the differences between local systems are quite significant, the trust system is gaining popularity across the countries for its flexibility of asset management. Just as the Quebec trust was inspired over time by the adjustment of the trust according to common law, the Czech legislator should proceed to amend the individual provisions of the trust fund so that its usability is as wide as possible. A different way from traditional common law has emerged in Germany, where Treuhand was created with German law leaving a wide margin of discretion and the codified part is a minority, as is the case with the French fiduciary. The great differences between the national regulations of trusts or trust-like institutes necessarily lead to the question of whether it is not appropriate to make certain legislative improvements. It is the comparison and knowledge of the most effective and flexible methods that allows us to make a correct and...
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".