Bibliographic record
Abstract
This a review article of Martin Loughlin, Foundations of Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). The promise of the book is that the retrieval of public law understood as a prudential discourse of public right will show us how liberal democratic societies have learned to negotiate between the horns of the fundamental dilemma Loughlin supposes we face. This is the dilemma articulated by Rousseau: on the one hand, a society has to take deliberate steps to produce through law free citizens in order to ensure that it is one in which freedom endures, while, on the other hand, such steps create the danger of ‘bureaucratic oppression’ of the sort that produces a society composed of chiefs and slaves. However, at the end of the book, Loughlin suggests that the dilemma has been resolved and that we are in danger of finding ourselves living, or perhaps even are already living, in the society of chiefs and slaves. And if the idea of public right is retrieved only to show that it is either moribund or dead, we have reached the end of what FA Hayek called in 1944 ‘the road to serfdom.’ I argue that Loughlin comes to this surprising conclusion because of a fundamental flaw in his argument about the rule of law, in which he both reduces the rule of law to an instrument of power and suggests that it has to fail on its own terms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".