Book Review: Theory and Practice of Harmonisation, Mads Andenæs & Camilla B. Andersen (Eds)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory and Practice of Harmonisation is an edited symposium publication which tackles the ambitious topic of legal harmonisation. Some common themes can be identified. First, several papers deal with the background to or reasons for harmonisation and consider whether harmonisation goals are being met.Second, several papers examine language-textual issues or problems with defining concepts. A third centralizing theme is the role of legal institutions, in particular courts, in facilitating harmonisation. Finally, a fourth theme is evident in those papers that look at the instruments, mechanisms or legal techniques that are used to implement harmonisation. As a whole, the text seems somewhat ‘old-fashioned’ in talking about harmonisation – law’s more global operation – without including recent reflections on governance, legal pluralism or similar articulations about multiple jurisdictional claims to legitimacy. Other than superficial mention in a handful of chapters, the text misses out on Comparative Law’s contributions and debates, for example: whether particular legal legacies are better choices than others; whether certain areas of law harmonise more easily; whether and how laws move transnationally; and whether and how local legal culture serves as an obstacle to reception of foreign law.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.011 |
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".