Complementing Comparison: Renewing Analytical Legal Theory to Meet the Explanatory Challenge of Globalisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now beyond question that legal theory risks parochialism and diminished interest if it fails to understand the implications of globalisation for law. Historically state-focused analytical legal theory, once a dominant force in jurisprudential debate, is thought by some to be especially likely to fade into irrelevance. William Twining has been a particularly acute critic of analytical legal theory, offering arguments whose force is amplified by Twining's long history of work from within that tradition. Twining argues that analytical legal theory's state-centred approach and analytic method of conceptual analysis render it incapable of taking globalisation seriously. In response, we argue that analytical legal theorists might well take Twining's criticisms of them not as the end of their relevance, but instead as a challenge to explain how their methods and subject matter are capable of renewal and expansion. In this paper we take some initial steps towards showing how this might be done.
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 | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".