Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attempts to defend two claims – first, that there is at least one intelligible and coherent concept of juridical equality extant in the law. This concept, I argue, has three components and two aspects and is found in an interestingly diverse range of doctrinal contexts. The fact that it is well rooted in doctrine, and that it applies to law application rather than just law creation, sets it apart – in a virtuous way – from other available accounts of juridical equality. The second claim is that this concept of juridical equality, despite the many complaints that might be made against it, is normatively significant and (possibly) normatively respectable. It is argued that this concept of juridical equality, construed as an inclusionary claim, can flourish only in a limited range of normative environments, one of which is a community of principle. The paper is a qualified defence of an allegedly ‘formal,’ supposedly uninteresting and institutionally embodied concept of equality, a concept often overlooked by contemporary political philosophers and regarded as anachronistic by many contemporary jurists.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".