MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061494529 · doi:10.3138/utlj.58.1.1

ONCE MORE INTO THE FRAY: CHALLENGES FOR LEGAL POSITIVISM

2008· article· en· W2061494529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew H. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositivismLegal positivismMoralityEpistemologyJurisprudenceLawSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLegal realismLegal profession

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a number of recent writings (including an article published in this journal), Nigel Simmonds has endeavoured to rebut the insistence of legal positivists on the separability of law and morality. The present article responds to his challenges by showing that he has overlooked many important conceptual distinctions and by pointing out that he relies on empirical assumptions that are neither substantiated nor credible. Having striven mightily to bring about the downfall of legal positivism, Simmonds has unwittingly reinforced it by revealing the sheer implausibility of the doctrines that are opposed to it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.130
Scholarly communication0.0190.030
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0150.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207