Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Land demarcation systems are ancient human artifacts and are fundamental to property law and property markets. In this chapter we develop an economic framework for examining systems of land demarcation and examine the economic history of demarcation in the United States and beyond. We focus on metes and bounds and rectangular systems – the two dominate land demarcation methods. We examine the various patterns of demarcation used in the U.S. and describe how a centralized rectangular system became dominant in large parts of the U.S. as well as in commercial urban subdivisions. We also show rectangular systems have been adopted in parts of Canada and Australia and cities in other parts of the world. We consider how a decentralized system of land claiming would generate patterns of land holdings that would be unsystematic and depend on natural topography and the characteristics of the claimant population. We then show how a centralized, rectangular system generates different ownership patterns and incentives for land use, land markets, investment, and border disputes. We illustrate some empirical findings from an analysis of metes and bounds in the Virginia Military District of Ohio.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".