MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129370845 · doi:10.3138/utlj.61.3.467

PROPERTY AND COLLECTIVE UNDERTAKING: THE PRINCIPLE OF <i>NUMERUS CLAUSUS</i>

2011· article· en· W2129370845 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumerus claususLegitimationLaw and economicsProperty (philosophy)Private propertyPoliticsProperty rightsContext (archaeology)Political scienceDemocracyConverseLawSociologyPublic propertyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I seek to reclaim for property theory the legitimation concern that is the kernel of the principle of numerus clausus (which is a restriction that means that it cannot be up to private persons to create new forms of property right, but only to trade rights that take existing forms). I advance two general claims. First, functional accounts of this principle cannot but fail adequately to explain it. Second, the numerus clausus can be cast into sharp relief by elaborating the legitimation question that captures its moral centre – that is, a concern about how political authority is possible in the context of legislating new forms of property right. I insist, in this regard, that the conception of political legitimation that characterizes the creation of novel forms of property right is that of democratic self-governance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.201 · 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