Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".