Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I revisit the arguments in, and address some concerns about, an earlier article of mine, ‘The Office of Ownership.’ This article makes two main points. The first is about the ways in which a transfer of property from one person to another affects the obligations of third parties. I continue to defend the earlier article’s claim that, by thinking about the obligations owed to owners of property as being owed to ‘the owner,’ rather than to the particular named person who happens to be the owner, we can maintain both the idea that property rights are in rem and the idea that they partake of private law’s distinctive bilateral normativity. The second is about the extent to which the notion of an office is helpful in thinking about ownership. There is reason to doubt that it is, notably because owners’ powers are typically not bounded in the way that office-holders’ powers seem to be. But I argue that, at least some of the time, particularly in contexts where owners are able to exercise powers that bind their successors in title, such as by creating easements, leases, or running covenants, the powers of ownership do seem bounded by their purpose.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".