Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arbitration and other extrajudicial forms of dispute settlement are only beginning to receive serious consideration in historical studies. Long relegated to an intermediate position in the presumed progression from violent self-help to the sophisticated machinery of a state-run judicial sys- tem, arbitration seemed to hold little historical interest. It lacked formal procedures and conceptual sophistication. Its contribution to legal his- tory, therefore, was minimal, so arbitration received only brieftreatment in histories of civil procedure.^Political and social history also neglected arbitration, which was seen as contributing little to the formation of effec- tive government and social order. Arbitration, it was assumed, flourished only where and when government was too weak to provide truly effective order.2 Historians utilizing local sources in areas of continental Europe and England have begun to take stock of the persistence and vitality of arbitration alongside the law. This persistence is taken as indicative not so much of shortcomings in the formal judicial system but of "a vigorous and durable tradition of extrajudicial settlement."^Recognition has been accorded to the role played by canon law in setting the place of arbitration in a legal order.'* The needs of city residents and governments have been singled out as formative for legal arbitration.^It has also become apparent that litigation and arbitration were not mutually exclusive. Many suits were initiated to culminate not in formal adjudication but in a compromise settlement. The lawsuit was not an end in itself but a form of leverage to force a settlement,'* at times with the encouragement of the judge.^The intent of this paper is to investigate the relationship between arbitration and law in one city, Florence, focusing in the end on a judicial case concerning arbitration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".