Teoría del Derecho y Método: Un Esbozo del Método Empírico Generalizado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal and philosophical theories divide jurists. A comprehensive method seems to be needed in order to attain cohesion and to integrate jurisprudence. This essay offers an overlook on the general empirical method of the outstanding canadian contemporary philosopher Bernard Lonergan. It constitutes a serious approach to the basic structure of knowledge, that according to Lonergan, is conformed by four levels of concience and their interactions. The method´s characteristics enable positivism, rationalism, natural law, american realism and other philosophical conceptions on law to share common views. The “insight” or second level of concience is illustrated with an Agatha Christie´s story. Examples of modes of reasoning and intellectual inquiry of judges and the way they reach their conclusions are also provided.
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 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".