MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118854655

Simplifying Claims to Traceable Proceeds

2009· article· en· W2118854655 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Portal (King's College London) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffLawProperty (philosophy)Common lawSettlorTrust lawLaw and economicsBusinessProperty lawUnjust enrichmentPolitical scienceProperty rightsEconomicsRestitutionPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is continuing debate, in case law and in academic literature, as to the nature of law tracing. Some recent cases suggest that a plaintiff can assert a kind of legal property interest in the proceeds of an unauthorized disposition of the plaintiff's property. But the nature of this property interest is poorly understood, while the possibility of asserting a trust interest in the proceeds of an unauthorized disposition is clear and well-established. The author shows that the recent cases are based on a misunderstanding. Since the early 19th century if not before, the common law courts allowed plaintiffs to use common law claims to vindicate equitable interests under a trust. It follows that all proprietary claims to the traceable proceeds of unauthorized dispositions can be understood as founded on trusts arising by operation of law. This approach promises to make the law much simpler and more coherent. There is no room, and no need, to try to make sense of proprietary common law claims to assets that are the traceable proceeds of an unauthorized substitution.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it