MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266662412

Book Review: Joshua Getzler, A History of Water Rights at Common Law

2007· article· en· W2266662412 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie Benidickson

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrinePoliticsLegal historyLawContext (archaeology)JurisprudenceProperty rightsCommon lawRiparian zoneLegal doctrinePolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyHistoryArchaeologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.025

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207