Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the different theories of law and culture, and defines the concept and breadth of legal culture. It also discusses the relationship between law and culture, referring to the existing literature on the subject. Furthermore, it discusses how authors have connected culture to civil procedure, and why the concept of “modern legal culture” is important in the context of class action law. Its main thesis is the cultural construction of class action law. Indeed, the class action encourages the transmission of culture and the history of the North American class action was influenced by culture. The class action also mirrors society's structure and culture, in light of the following three characteristics of North American contemporary culture: access to justice, managerial judging and the preference for settlements. Class actions correspondingly affect North American legal culture, as evidenced by changes in the legal institutions, in the role of judges and in the legal profession. Finally, in this article it is argued that the cross-constitutive relationship between class action law and culture must be studied both theoretically and empirically. Ultimately, this article seeks to demonstrate that the class action is a disputing institution that is culturally constructed, that plays a role in the construction and transmission of culture-that is, of social arrangements, systems of beliefs and values.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".