MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233398724 · doi:10.25058/1794600x.1044

La posesión. Análisis crítico de una falsa institución

2019· article· en· W4233398724 on OpenAlexaff
J.L Del Moral Barilari

Bibliographic record

VenueMisión Jurídica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative International Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author of this article argues that possession is an artificial institution, created around the second century AD, when it ceased to be an animus (animus possidendi) merely accompanying a physical performance of control over a thing (tentio) to end up becoming the very performance itself. That animus possidendi only accompanies the performance of a non- owner, since the real owner also exercises a tentio but with animus proficiendi. Finally, he emphasizes the intermediate position of the abovementioned tentio in the evolution of the legal system, halfway between mere physical contact with the thing and substantive legitimacy on it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.027
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMisión JurídicaSame topicComparative International Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207