Should the Notion of a Right of Ownership Bearing on Incorporeal Property Meet with Disapproval? Reflections Upon the Ownership of Claims (Faut-il Condamner La Propriété Des Biens Incorporels? Réflexions Autour de La Propriété Des Créances)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims at estabiishing the possibility of recognizing the ownership of incorporeal property and especially of claims in Romano-Germanic legal system. Desptte the traditional theoretical reluctance towards ownership of incorporeal property and especially towards the ownership of claims, positive law seems more and more disposed to recognize a claim as property, as an object upon which ownership bears. Not only are analyses other than the materialistic analysis of ownership possible, but the latter seems more and more at odds with recent developments in law. The distinciion between real and personal rights, often invoked to refute the notion of the ownership of claims has long reached a number of limits. Above all, one can note than it is possible to find ownership in the notion of the titulartty of claims, which is classically used. The recognition of such ownership also has technical consequences, in terms of a juridical regime. One can find in the ownership of property claims a large part of that which constitutes the juridical regime of material ownership. Thus even if one doubts, as do certain scholars, the fact that the ownership of a claim as a type of immaterial ownership is an antimony totally out-of-date, it nevertheless seems possible to bring it up-to-date, with the recognition of an authentic incorporeal ownership, bearing on the incorporeal property that claims are.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".