Bibliographic record
Abstract
As all Americans know, an assembly of men gathered in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, to pledge to one another their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors.It is not frequently noticed that their action that day marked the beginning of a distinctive profession of law.Its creation was marked by language appearing in two sentences of the brief Declaration of Independence that all present signed.Those sentences proclaimed:(1) the expectation of inalienable rights derived from natural law, (2) rights derived from the consent of their government, and(3) the right to equal treatment by the law.' Implicit in the text of the Declaration was the notion that all of these rights would be prescribed by their new government and made enforceable in a court of law.Not all who signed the Declaration were equally committed to all three of these ideas about rights, and the three cannot always be reconciled to one another.Like most other legal texts, the Declaration was a compromise.Its words were chosen in the heat of the moment for the political purposes of rallying as many colonials as possible to the revolutionary cause and gaining support in England and in Europe.2And it was soon recognized that the proclamation of rights derived from natural law expressed an ambition that their new government would not be able to express or enforce.But a complex legal system and energetic advocates of rights were destined to arise.There were not many lawyers in the thirteen colonies in 1776.And some opposed the Revolution and fled to Canada or England.But many of
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".