Collaboration, Cosmopolitanism and Complicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, the authors use their experience of a collaboration as a vehicle for thinking critically about the uneasy relationship between the practices and products of internationally oriented legal scholars situated in the North. They use tools drawn from feminist theory to tease out in particular, some of the perils in the turn to cosmopolitanism as a response to globalization, and explore the way in which this mirrors a cosmopolitan urge both embedded in international legal discourse and at play in the self-constitution of the international lawyer (including themselves). They then draw on feminist and other critical theories to ask whether a conceptual reconfiguration of a `critical cosmopolitanism' can offer a useful alternative to the old view. They remain wary about whether any reconfigurations with a `global' scale can overcome the problems which inhere in purportedly transformative western scholarship generally, and so conclude somewhat circumspectly, emphasizing the need to frame their approach reflexively and to focus on changes they could make to their everyday practices of teaching and research to reduce the risk of complicity with the unacknowledged parochialism of cosmopolitanism.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".