MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2213989475 · doi:10.26686/vuwlr.v41i3.5214

Informal Land Titles: Snowden v Baker (1844)

2010· article· en· W2213989475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce Kercher

Bibliographic record

VenueVictoria University of Wellington Law Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory interpretationDiscretionStatutory lawLawInterpretation (philosophy)High CourtPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snowden v Baker (1844) concerned the judicial recognition of informal land titles. This article compares the treatment of this broad question in Newfoundland and New South Wales, with Snowden v Baker.In Newfoundland and New South Wales, informal titles gained legal recognition. This happened in Newfoundland through judicial creativity, including statutory interpretation. In New South Wales, the formal law was applied more strictly, but was softened when commissioners were appointed to assess whether Crown discretion should be exercised in favour of those dispossessed due to informality.Both methods were used in New Zealand, where the informal titles of British settlers derived from sales by Māori land owners. Titles purchased from Māori owners were declared null and void unless based on Crown grants. As in New South Wales, commissioners were appointed to advise whether such grants should be made. In Snowden v Baker, Martin CJ used statutory interpretation to take a further step, by holding that titles derived from Māori sales had a contingent validity until affirmed or denied by the Crown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictoria University of Wellington Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207