1,720,984 research outputs found
Settlements and Waivers Affecting Pension Benefits Under ERISA
Full text linkWaivers affecting pension benefits may be entered into as part of a controversy (for example, a settlement agreement) or in isolation (for example, a disclaimer). Under current law, however, it is unclear how these waivers fit within the protections of ERISA, particularly the antialienation rule. Courts have generally honored settlement agreements so long as they are procedurally fair to participants. However, the antialienation rule looms in the background. The IRS and Treasury, in contrast, have focused on waivers outside the settlement context, prohibiting participants from making them but allowing beneficiaries to do so if the waiver satisfies gift-tax rules for disclaimers. The author critiques these results and suggests that waivers that settle disputes or that simply refuse plan benefits are outside the scope of the antialienation rule and should be respected
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
How Bitcoin Functions As Property Law
Full text linkBitcoin replicates many of the formal aspects of real estate transactions. Bitcoin transactions have features that closely resemble grantor names, grantee names, legal descriptions, and signatures found in real property deeds. While these “Bitcoin deeds” may be interesting, they are not profound. Bitcoin goes beyond creating simple digital deeds, however, and replicates important institutional aspects of real estate transactions, in particular recordation and title assurance. Deeds to real property are recorded in a central repository (e.g., the public records office), which the parties (and the public) can search to determine title. When one grantor executes more than one deed covering the same property, recordation acts (race, notice, and race-notice) determine which grantee wins.
The Bitcoin blockchain replicates the public records office, giving anyone with a computer the ability to see any Bitcoin transaction. Bitcoin mining replicates the recording of deeds, a process by which formally valid transactions between two parties become essentially a public record. When one grantor executes more than one transaction covering the same Bitcoin, a miner determines which grantee wins simply by moving one transaction to the blockchain before the others.
Remarkably, Bitcoin replicates these aspects of real estate transfers without any governing authority to coordinate or supervise activities. It has no central database for the blockchain. Instead, users across the globe maintain the blockchain in identical form. Bitcoin has no recorder of deeds to time-stamp and process transactions. Instead, it relies on dispersed and competitive miners to, in effect, time-stamp transactions and add them to the blockchain. Ultimately, this Article will show that Bitcoin succeeds because it leads its community of users to a consensus about the blockchain.
Thus, this Article will conclude that Bitcoin replicates elemental pieces of property law, but it does so wholly outside of traditional legal structures. Ownership is based on computer protocols, computer records, community expectations, and nothing more. Bitcoin functions as law, even though it operates outside of the law
Smart Contracts and the Limits of Computerized Commerce
Full text linkHaving recently celebrated its ten-year anniversary, Bitcoin should be considered a qualified success. In October 2020, each unit1 was worth about 200 billion.2 Bitcoin is a significant economic force with sizable market value. Despite this success, however, Bitcoin has not been widely adopted as a method of payment, which was its intended use.3 By providing a template for a durable cryptocurrency, Bitcoin also blazed a path for other cryptocurrency projects. In terms of market capitalization and current importance, Ethereum is comfortably in second place.4 In October 2020, it had a market capitalization of approximately $40 billion.5 Unlike Bitcoin, however, Ethereum was not designed primarily to serve as a method of payment. Ethereum supports a system of sophisticated “smart contracts” that would not work on the Bitcoin system. Smart contracts and cryptocurrencies have sparked considerable interest among legal scholars in recent years, and a growing body of scholarship focuses on whether smart contracts and cryptocurrencies can sidestep law and regulation altogether.6 Bitcoin is famously decentralized, without any central actor controlling the system. Its users remain largely anonymous, using alphanumeric addresses instead of legal names. Ethereum shares these traits and also supports smart contracts that can automate the transfer of the Ethereum cryptocurrency (known as ether). Ethereum also supports specialized “tokens” that can be tied to the ownership of assets, goods, and services that exist completely outside of the Ethereum blockchain.
The goal of this Article is to evaluate the degree to which cryptocurrencies and smart contracts can operate outside the reach of law and regulation. By some accounts, cryptocurrencies and smart contracts will revolutionize private law.7 Some argue they have the potential to displace contract and property law. For example, in a previous article, I argued that Bitcoin represents a system of private property that exists wholly outside of traditional legal structures.8 In this Article, I will argue that a complete revolution is not inexorable.9 Facing the technical and complicated nature of this subject, we should keep in mind a simple fact: cryptocurrencies and smart contracts are computer data and computer programs. To a large extent, they will have legal force only if given force by judges, regulators, and legislators. Part II describes Bitcoin and how it creates a system of property that exists outside of legal structures. Bitcoin is special because it controls no external assets (like securities, dollars, or gold). It is purely “notional” property that exists only on a computer file. Part III describes Ethereum and how it builds upon the principles of Bitcoin. The primary innovation of Ethereum is smart contracts, which allow for variable and conditional transfers of cryptocurrency.
To be of commercial value, however, smart contracts must incorporate economic or financial information (e.g., interest rates or exchange rates). Ethereum allows users to incorporate this information using third party “oracles.” While oracles allow for sophisticated transactions, their presence illustrates some of the limits of smart contracts. Part IV extends the discussion of Ethereum and explains how many developers use it as a way to effectuate property transactions. Tokens are specialized smart contracts used to represent ownership of assets or certain privileges. Conceivably, ownership in any asset— homes, cars, etc.—could be represented by Ethereum tokens. Rather than using a deed of transfer, owners could simply transfer the representative tokens. Part V develops what this Article calls a “remote-computer model” of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Because Bitcoin and Ethereum are computer programs and computer data, we can view each as constituting a single computer. This hypothetical computer is remote in the sense that judges, regulators, and legislators can exercise little control over it directly. The remote computer controls ownership of cryptocurrency units, leaving direct cryptocurrency transactions outside the scope of traditional legal institutions. That being said, smart contracts often purport to control external resources and rights. For example, a smart contract might purport to control the transfer of land or stock in a corporation. These transactions have effects outside the hypothetical remote computer and can potentially be subject to control by legal institutions
- …
