MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W577321222 · doi:10.3138/9781442688469

Law of the Land: The Advent of the Torrens System in Canada

2008· book· en· W577321222 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gregory Dening Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2008
Typebook
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthLawLand lawGeographyLand usePolitical scienceLand tenureArchaeologyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How was it that the Torrens system, a mid-nineteenth-century reform of land titles registration from distant South Australia, gradually replaced the inherited Anglo-Canadian common law system of land registration? In The Law of the Land, Greg Taylor traces the spread of the Torrens system, from its arrival in the far-flung outpost of 1860s Victoria, British Columbia, right up to twenty-first century Ontario. Examining the peculiarity of how this system of land reform swept through some provinces like wildfire, and yet still remains completely unknown in three provinces, Taylor shows how the different histories of various regions in Canada continue to shape the law in the present day. Presenting a concise and illuminating history of land reform, he also demonstrates the power of lobbying, by examining the influence of both moneylenders and lawyers who were the first to introduce the Torrens system to Canada east of the Rockies. An exact and fluent legal history of regional law reforms, The Law of the Land is a fascinating examination of commonwealth influence, and ongoing regional differences in Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.146 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207