Protecting Possession, a Question of Values? A Comparative Inquiry into the Moralization of Possession in Brazil and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on possessory protection of immovables (or real property) in Brazilian civil law and Canadian common law. In both jurisdictions, possession enjoys a specific protection or status, which in turn relates to the rest of property law, particularly the law of acquisitive prescription, in a specific way. But in and by itself, despite these conceptual differences, possessory protection in Canada or Brazil works in an objective fashion: it is not denied to possessors in bad faith as a principle. Nonetheless, in both systems, the institutions designed to protect possession have been “moralized” by judges to echo concerns similar to those voiced in relation to acquisitive prescription, but also to emphasize human rights, constitutional values and good faith. In Brazil, this moralization process is the consequence of the emergence of a constitutionalized civil law and of the social function of the right of ownership. In several cases, it has allowed illicit buildings to remain where they are despite the owner’s claim, for instance when a favela has appeared on a land neglected by its owner for years. In England, the possessor’s good faith has been scrutinized through his intent to possess, and under the lenses of the future enjoyment criteria, later rejected by the Court of Appeal. In Canada, the test of the inconsistent use of the land has played the same moralizing role and continues to do so, to deny the benefit of adverse possession to squatters and to prevent them from enjoying possessory protection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".