Objects of Private Property in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and in the Civil Code of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Property norms, in expressing a relationship among people through resources, must address in some manner the organization of property rights and the classification of objects of property. Both the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Civil Code of Quebec express some notion of the idea of what the author has called property-as-object, taking the form of certain distinctions: movable/immovable, corporeal/incorporeal, capital/revenue, or in commerce/out of commerce.The Russian code contains a rich discussion of the objects of property, with a larger, more explicit formal role for objects in the understanding of property rights as compared to the Quebec code. The articles on objects in general manifest the traditional civilist distinctions, while set in the context of present Russian society.Moreover, notwithstanding some initial lack of clarity in the Russian code's classifi cation between the objects of property and the subject-matter of other patrimonial rights, the objects of property are clearly distinguishable as a category and are important to understanding property relations. Despite the focus in the Russian code on "things" as the objects of property as opposed to "rights in things", it is nevertheless the case that the latter are an important part of the property relationship, and cannot be disentangled from "things".
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".