De Quelques Invariables De La Possession: La Possession Transsystémique (Comparative Possession)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article a pour principal objectif de montrer qu’il est possible d’imaginer une notion de possession qui soit, dans ses grands traits, commune aux traditions de droit civil et de common law. Dans un premier temps, l’article rend compte du lien entre possession et propriete en droit civil et en common law, pour montrer que l’opposition entre les deux traditions a ce sujet n’est pas aussi tranchee que ce qui a parfois ete soutenu. Dans un second temps, l’auteur identifie dans le corpus et l’animus les manifestations de la possession transsystemique. Finalement, en s’appuyant sur les travaux de Carol Rose en common law et de Raymond Saleilles en droit civil, l’auteur identifie l’essence de la possession comme un mode de communication aux tiers de l’intention d’exercer un pouvoir de controle sur un bien. C’est cette idee de communication aux tiers qui explique les principaux effets de la possession.English Abstract: The primary objective of this article is to show that it is possible to formulate a concept of possession that, in its main features, is common to both the civil law and common law traditions. The article begins with a look into the connections between possession and ownership in civil law and common law, demonstrating that the opposition between these two traditions in this regard is not as cut and dry as has sometimes been argued. The author then goes on to identify animus and corpus as being the manifestations of transsystemic possession. Finally, drawing on the work of Carol Rose in common law and Raymond Saleilles in civil law, the author finds that possession is in essence a means of communicating to third parties an intention to exert control over property. This concept of communication to third parties explains the main effects of possession.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".