Book Review: Joshua Getzler, A History of Water Rights at Common Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a book review of Joshua Getzler's “A History of Water Rights at Common Law”, Oxford University Press 2004. work emphasizes pre-1900 legal history, though it is an insightful account of the jurisprudence, economic and social development in the context of water rights from 1750 onwards. work's central thesis is: The history of riparian rights demonstrates that English property-use doctrine remained intractably legalistic and casuistical, and resistant to political and economic calculation. work discusses riparian allocation principles, rights to underground waters, rights to surface waters lacking a defined channel, and the assignability of water rights to non-riparians. Issues related to water allocation and access to industrial water predominate over issues affecting water quality, reflecting the attitudes of society and the common law at the time. Getzler's examination of water law highlights the implications of the subject for the study and understanding of general property law. Its consideration of general property principles and extensively-researched content makes the volume relevant to a wider range of legal scholar.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".