MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255320997

Contribution à une étude des troubles de voisinage et de la nuisance : la notion de devoirs de la propriété (Contribution to a Study of Neighbourhood Disturbances and Excessive Annoyances: The Notion of Duties Incumbent Upon Ownership)

2011· article· fr· W2255320997 on OpenAlexaff
Yaëll Emerich

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuisanceObligationSupreme courtLawDimension (graph theory)Civil law (Civil law)Law and economicsSociologyPolitical scienceWelfare economicsEconomicsPublic lawMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author takes into consideration both common law and civil law traditions to put forward a comparative and transsystemic approach to troubles de voisinage and private nuisance. She demonstrates the hybrid nature of troubles de voisinage and private nuisance, emphasizing how they lie somewhere between real and personal rights at civil law, and property rights at common law. This hybrid nature highlights the relational dimension of ownership as well as the duties ownership may entail in both legal traditions. As a result, ownership tends to acquire a social dimension, becoming a socially limited exclusivity relationship. The idea of a socially limited exclusivity relationship is hinted at in the Supreme Court decision St. Lauwrence Ciment Inc. v. Barrette, and has recently been recognized in American property law theory through social obligation theory.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.038
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207