Enfoques sociológicos para el estudio de las Cortes Internacionales
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the study of the sociological approaches to international courts this article is divided into three parts.In the first section, I outline how classical sociology can contribute to the study of international courts.My goal is to revitalize the rich heritage of the works of particularly Max Weber and Emile Durkheim and thereby frame a more macrosociological perspective about the role of international adjudication in the contemporary world.Next I discuss first the ambiguity of law and society scholarship with regard to institutions, particularly legal institutions, so as to explain the paradox of both its relative scholarly absence in the field of international courts and its important insights into law and courts in the modern political sphere.Against this background I will demonstrate how the insights of both law and society and mainstream sociology of the period, in combination with work of the pioneers of sociology, were in the last decade turned into a set of innovative approaches to studying international courts as institutions embedded in society.Against this analysis and out-line of theories, section three identifies a set of sociologically salient questions with respect to understanding international courts using both classical and contemporary sociology.It first looks into the question of institutions from a sociological perspective, then the place of agency in studies of international courts, and, finally, the notion of legitimacy as it is found in both classical and contemporary sociology and its implications for studying international courts.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.052 |
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 it