Conclusion — The Migration of Legal Ideas: Legislative Design and the Lawmaking Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the conclusion for an edited volume on legislative usage of foreign and international law, N. Lupo & L. Scaffardi, Legal Transplants and Parliaments: A Possible Dialogue Amongst Legislators? (2014). I assess the general turn in comparative law studies towards the behavior of elected officials, as well as the preference for increased formality in the use of foreign law. The essays in this book analyze the legal experiences of Brazil, Namibia, Australia, South Africa, Spain, the European Union, China, Canada, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy. Many of these countries (but not all, especially the U.S.) are characterized by a receptivity to foreign and international law. A commitment to legal pluralism can be especially pronounced in countries seeking to escape a colonial past. While a newfound preference for increased formality in using foreign models can be detected, experts disagree whether the quality and frequency of actual usage has improved. Additionally, there may be certain undesirable consequences of heightened proceduralism and professionalism. Attention to the role of particular institutions, bureaucratic innovations, and lawmakers' motivations in borrowing (or not borrowing) from foreign law would be most fruitful for research going forward.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".