Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent article, Peter Wills advances provocative claims regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s elucidation of constructive takings doctrine in Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality (Annapolis). This article responds to four key claims in Wills’ critique. First, it argues that the Annapolis judgment adheres to, and indeed exemplifies, the traditional method of common law adjudication. Second, it contends that a claim for compensation for a constructive taking is properly classified as a private law action, specifically, a tort. Third, it rebuts Wills’ allegation that the action is untenable and incoherent when evaluated as a species of tort. Fourth, it concludes that Wills fails to substantiate his criticisms of constructive takings doctrine and that legislative intervention to abolish the action would not make the common law more coherent. In truth, the critique is founded upon a mechanical, Benthamite model of the common law, whereas the Annapolis judgment is faithful to the classical approach to common law adjudication and its robust, juridical conception of coherence.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".