MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613895645

L'eau, chose commune : un statut juridique à confirmer

2000· article· fr· W2613895645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Madeleine Cantin Cumyn, Michelle Cumyn, Claire Skrinda

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)ChoseCommissionPublic administration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is based on a paper submitted to the Commission sur la gestion de l'eau au Quebec during the important public hearings recently held in that province. Part A deals with the legal status of water in Quebec. The Government of Quebec has recently taken the position that according to Quebec civil law, groundwater is privately owned by the owner of the land where it is located. This interpretation, in our view, is ill founded: groundwater, like surface water, is a res communis. Part B examines the legal status of water in the common law provinces. The law of those provinces does not grant individuals any proprietary rights in the water itself, only rights to use. The title to water is sometimes said to be vested in the Crown. However, what is meant is not a proprietary right in the water, but a public trust to protect the resource and control its use by individuals, in the public interest.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0150.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.008

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207