Bibliographic record
Abstract
I wish to claim that how we, as a society, deal with property resources is part of a moral context that reflects our values as a society or community. Indeed, I would go further to add that such a moral context imports what have been called the “social obligations” of property. Property rights are not unlimited. In examining how and why private property institutions ranging from ownership of land to ownership of a copyright are limited and indeed channelled or directed, and in analysing what justifications are offered for this in practice and theory, we inevitably expose larger ethical and moral principles: the common good, the development of individual goods, etc. Social obligations are most obvious in the various areas of intellectual property, even though we have grown accustomed to using individual, right-based vocabularies to frame IP discourse. As I shall argue, the areas of IP, especially copyright and patent, are all in some way subservient to a very ethical teleology. This teleology is present in the very foundational documents of intellectual property. The same kind of teleology is equally pervasive for private property, as a number of scholars are beginning to point out. This point however requires more excavation to unearth, and the bulk of this essay is focussed on that task. This is the “ethical thread” that I wish to expose. Once here, we have reached a point where we can begin to re-think private law in these terms: beginning with elements fundamental to the law of property, then moving to nuisance (on the cusp of property and civil responsibility), and expanding that scope into contract and tort, we can begin to see more fully what Fuller might have called the “aspirational morality” of private law.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".