Imputing a common intention in single ownership cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of imputing an intention of what the parties must have intended by reference to a yardstick of fairness has been accepted by the English courts at the assessment stage when determining the size of the parties' respective beneficial shares in the family home. There is, however, little or no suggestion in the English case law that an imputed common intention has any role to play at the initial acquisition stage of the enquiry in single ownership cases. But is this necessarily correct? The article seeks to address this question with reference to both the English cases and the Canadian experience, based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which provides an interesting comparison. The article argues for the acceptance of an objective approach to determining beneficial entitlement by drawing the imputation, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intention, that the parties reasonably expected to share in the assets created in their relationship.
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 | 0.056 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| 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".