Links Between Physical and Legal Structures of Community Title Schemes and Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the connection between physical and legal design of a community title scheme and the frequency, nature and number of disputes arising between stakeholders in a community titles scheme. The article examines disputes arising in community title schemes to discover whether the disputes were triggered or caused by physical or legal design defects that could be remedied or avoided in the future. The initial research has focused on an analysis of decisions made by adjudicators and judges under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), together with a comparative review of literature on the topic in Australia, the United States and Canada. For the purposes of the article, definitions of physical design and legal design have been developed. The article identifies common disputes that have links to physical or legal design and these have been grouped into five different categories. Dispute 'triggers' have been identified and, where appropriate, potential solutions suggested. The article concludes with suggestions for future avenues of research.
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 | 0.044 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".