MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2523429878

A Property Law Reader: Cases, Questions and Commentary, 4th Edition, Preface and Table of Contents

2016· article· en· W2523429878 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Bruce Ziff, Jeremy de Beer, Douglas C. Harris, Margaret E. McCallum

Notice bibliographique

RevueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal principles and applications
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of FrederictonUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProperty (philosophy)Principal (computer security)Property lawElement (criminal law)LawChoice of lawCommon lawReal propertyLaw and economicsPolitical scienceProperty rightsSociologyComputer scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyConflict of laws
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Property law — that body of rules which describes and defines relationships between people with respect to things — involves many choices. The choices include determining when it is appropriate and desirable to label something as property or, more accurately, as subject to a relationship between people based in the rules of property law. The choices involve asking questions, including why it is that we create relationships based in property and who should benefit from them. The rules of property law are notoriously difficult and complex, and they frequently appear disjointed and unconnected, but they are not arbitrary. They are based on choices, sometimes made explicitly, other times implicitly, about what is important. One of our principal goals in this collection of property law materials is to emphasize that the making of choices is a necessary, although commonly under-acknowledged, element in creating a regime of property law. We have made a choice to highlight what Margaret Davies has described as ‘‘asking the why question”. This involves using materials that prompt not only an investigation of the rules of property law but also the justifications for those rules. Another choice we have made in compiling this material is to highlight the disparate sources of property law. Excerpts from the decisions of common law courts dominate the page count, and learning to derive the principles and the rules from these decisions is a core element in a common law legal education, but there is much else besides. We have chosen to emphasize Indigenous legal traditions as one of the sources of Canadian property law alongside the civil law tradition in Quebec and the common law tradition (including principles of equity) in the rest of the country. This presents challenges, not the least because the concept or category of property, as it has developed in western legal traditions, sits uneasily with many Indigenous legal traditions. But it is also a useful reminder that the rules governing human relationships with respect to things are not only jurisdictionally, but also culturally and historically specific. The law of property is also to be found in a great diversity of legislative instruments, ranging from city by-laws, through provincial and federal statutes and regulations, to international agreements. These sources are scattered throughout the volume, but using them presents other challenges. Within the Canadian federation, property is primarily a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and the diversity of property regimes among the provinces limits our capacity to delve into the particular statutory framework of any one jurisdiction when producing a set of materials that is relevant across Canadian common law jurisdictions. As a result, we include examples from different jurisdictions and leave it to course instructors to add as much or as little of what is particular to their jurisdictions as they think desirable.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,956
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,973

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeYLS (Yale Law School)Même sujetLegal principles and applicationsTravaux en français237 207