Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter argues that possession should not function as the linchpin of property at all. Instead, ownership combined with privity, force, and fraud get us what the relativity of title and its emphasis on possession are sometimes thought to provide. The chapter is organized into two parts. The first considers the special importance of the role of true owners in possessory disputes. It emphasizes the concept of ownership pro tem, which preserves the authority of owners by enabling a finder to slot herself into a role that is protective of the office of ownership. This concept of ownership pro tem does not, however, explain all the variety of rights to possess in the common law. Not all holders of rights to possess are owners pro tem. Someone who mistakenly assumes something is hers and someone who knows it is not but who asserts dominion over it anyway — i.e., a thief — both possess without deference to the authority of the true owner. What explains this other variety of right to possess, that of the wrongdoer? The second part argues that there is a second and distinct normative nexus that exists between a wrongdoer and a later possessor in some contexts. The ancient concept of privity explains this normative nexus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".