A Tale of Three Takings: Taking Analysis in Land Use Regulation in the United States, Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DUCTION NTROhe roots of the American, Australian, and Canadian legal systems spring from a common English heritage.Similarly, their conceptions of property draw on a common heritage, including the Magna Carta 1 and the writings of Blackstone 2 and Locke, 3 with the result that protection of property is a prominent feature of all three legal systems.When the government expropriates private property within these democratic societies, there is a presumption and, in some cases, a constitutional compulsion to compensate the owner. TBeginning in the 1920s, the U.S. Supreme Court deviated from the principle that compensation is only required when the government takes possession of or acquires a legal interest in property.In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 4 the Supreme Court held that regulating the use of property, in that case Pennsylvania Coal's mineral rights, may also require compensation if the regulation "goes too far." 5 "Regulatory taking" claims did not become common, however, until the 1970s when land use and environmental regulation became pervasive; because these regulations seriously devalued or limited the use of land, property rights advocates, not only in the United States but also in Australia and Canada, began to seek more extensive protection.By the 1990s, cases in both Aus-
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".