Bibliographic record
Abstract
As transnational commercial lawyers have long known, border crossing, globe-spanning economic activities and business practices prompt legal responses that extend the public–private interplay and legal pluralism of the nation-state to – literally – unchartered territory. In the transnational space of exchange and trade of the modern age, law evolves through the interplay of “transnational lift-off and juridical touchdown,” constantly re-drawing the boundaries between private agency and public authority. As for lawyers, these contemplate whether or to what degree segments of this transnational regulatory regime – the mysterious and mesmerizing lex mercatoria – should properly be called law. And whereas from the perspective of sociology and geography the evolving landscape challenges conceptions of location and boundaries, for political science the focus must be on the element of authority. In other words, the urgent political question of transnational governance regards control, the emblem of power. As the sites and trajectories of transnational governance continue to span more and more regulatory areas, the combined question of who's in charge and to whose benefit has to move into the center of an interdisciplinary engagement. Law's history of interdisciplinarity situates it well for a productive contribution to this enterprise, which is one that must go beyond lip service to the need for thinking about law and globalization from an interdisciplinary perspective; crucially, it is the normative challenge of transnational governance that prompts a reflection on its stakes, interests, and aspirations. Law's engagement with the spatialization of transnational governance regimes under postnational conditions must address the normative challenge political philosophers and political scientists have long been addressing. The question raised in this chapter is how law and, more specifically, developments in private law theory address the normative challenges of transnational private regulatory governance. The larger issue behind this question concerns private law's contribution to a legal theory of global governance, with the contention – from a historical perspective – that private law has always played a central role in social regulation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.012 |
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".