The idea of the continuation and extinguishment of 'Welsh' customary land law in the face of Norman-English conquest and legal regime change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the setting of military conquest and revolutionary change, and the consequent resolution of legalities, lawmakers will often attempt to articulate very selective distinctions about the past and the present and about continuities and transformations. The idea of the continuation, or conversely the extinguishment, of customary law is of course a concept which has attracted the attention of historians of the common law, and in the context of land law there has been a particular concern in recent years relating to native title claims in 'settled colonies', principally in the United States of America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In line with common law methodology, precedents endow this discourse; and the Welsh case which is cited in this context as the exemplar of the survival of indigenous laws in a post-conquest settlement is 'Witrong v Blaney' (1674) 3 Keeble 401 [84 ER 789]. It has been by way of cases like 'Witrong v Blaney' that Sir Edward Coke's analysis of the legalities of conquest informed the Blackstonian declaration of the colonies, establishing the paradigm within which we still largely function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".