Tra Costantino e Agostino: novità di prospettive antiche nel rapporto fra giustizia e diritto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 20th Century Europe has been affected by dramatic conflicts between different visions of the world. These conflicts were based on ideological representations of reality and aimed to pursue the systematic erasing of the adversary. The path to recovery of individual subjectivity, as a human category, crucial for the full comprehension of the experience and its meaning, represents a significant positive component of post-modern contemporary philosophy: it traces back to the thought of Saint Augustine, the philosopher who placed the interiority of existence, considered in its transcendental quality, in the horizon of temporality, so affirming the undisputed centrality of the relationship between law and justice. The anthropological innovation contained in such development reflects, today, on the ground of the legal thinking, orienting it in a de-structuring sense with respect to the formalistic models that ruled in legal science for most of the 20th Century, so that the traditional conceptual schemes are considered totally or partially unproductive compared to the frames offered by the Constitutions and their principles, while a need of justice as legal standard raises again; the very need that seemed to have strongly diminished in the very last part of the past century. The historian of law takes such changes as an occasion for a deep reflection on the role and tasks of the jurist and, at the same time, as the renewal of a comparison, that marked the whole historic development of law between the middle-age and contemporary age, between different, rather opposite models: one based on Thomism and the thought of Aristotle; the other individualistic.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".