Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The standard justifications for control over territory appeal to goods that are delivered to persons who inhabit the territory (self‐determination, justice). This raises the question: What justifies territorial rights in unoccupied places? This question is relevant to a pressing practical question concerning the permissibility of national and corporate interests in mining or gas drilling and other resource extraction activities in unoccupied places, some of which were either technologically impractical or prohibitively expensive in the past, but which now are possible. The territorial rights literature does not focus on unoccupied places, treating resource rights there as an extension of rights in occupied places, thereby suggesting that these activities could be justified in the same way. This article examines the distinctive normative contours of unoccupied spaces, and so considers a number of possible arguments to justify such rights. It focuses on rights to resources in relation to three different kinds of unoccupied places and suggests that the stewardship justification is the most promising (although there is some role for other arguments in relation to certain kinds of unoccupied places).
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 | 0.000 | 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".