Bibliographic record
Abstract
In orthodox theory, the law of property is held to be fundamentally about the identification and protection of rights in things (corporeal property), assumed to be finite in space and infinite in time. But modern economies undermine the explanatory power of this orthodoxy four ways. First, the space of property can no longer be easily fixed once and for all. This is especially the case for incorporeals but is also true of corporeals. Second, the time of property is now understood differently. The past distinction between fruits and products has been questioned with the recognition that fruits, like products, can also diminish capital value. Third, the close association of fruits and revenues is becoming untenable. Many types of revenue actually represent the price of a partial alienation and can, consequently, be considered proceeds. Finally, developments both material (like genetic engineering) and intellectual (like moral rights) challenge the idea of property as a thing to use. While the theory of property in Book IV of the C.C.Q. continues to reflect traditional spatio-temporal assumptions, the law of secured transactions in Book VI rests on an alternative vision of property as value. This essay deploys a detailed analysis of the idea of fruits to illustrate how today the Civil Code balances distinctions between fruits, products and accessions (property as thing) on the one hand and between revenues, capital and proceeds (property as value) on the other.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.440 | 0.132 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".