MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W909319680 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1139

Adding Epicycles: The Inconsistent Use Test in Adverse Possession Law

2009· article· en· W909319680 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael H. Lubetsky

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse possessionPossession (linguistics)LawTest (biology)Common lawCivil law (Civil law)CraftSociologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic lawHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The common law courts in Ontario developed the Inconsistent Use Test (IUT) to assess claims of adverse possession. The IUT, however, often produces counter-intuitive results, which has led other jurisdictions to reject it and caused the Ontario courts to craft numerous exceptions and qualifications to the test that have left the state of the law on adverse possession very unclear. This article argues that the IUT actually represents an unconscious attempt by the Ontario judiciary to develop a functional equivalent to the civil law principle of "interversion," currently found in article 923 of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCO). It further explores how the rise and fall of the IUT in a single generation reveals some of the weaknesses of inductive law-making under the common law tradition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207