MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621211123

Unlawful Killing of a Joint Tenant

2008· article· en· W2621211123 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint (building)Political scienceLawEngineeringStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In circumstances where one joint tenant unlawfully kills another joint tenant the case law is consistent in providing a legal response to deny the wrongdoer from benefiting from the killing. However, in achieving that objective different responses have been applied including severance of the joint tenancy at law or in equity or the imposition of a constructive trust. The author examines the case law in the United States, Australia, England, Canada and New Zealand and argues that there are difficulties with the responses of the courts because in some circumstances they are too generous to felons and in other circumstances they are unfair to victims. To overcome these difficulties the author advocates for a legal response whereby the victim is assumed to still be alive and the felon retains the right to sever the joint tenancy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.198 · 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