Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the source ‘general principles of international law’ from the point of view of comparative law scholarship. The currently accepted definition of general principles and methodology for identifying such principles are critiqued. The criterion of the representativeness of the major families of legal systems, to which courts and tribunals tend to pay lip service rather than applying rigorously, is meant to anchor general principles in state consent, but is not a sound technique either for identifying principles of relevance to international law or for preventing judges from referring only to the legal systems they know best. Furthermore, the emphasis on extracting the essence of rules results in leaving behind most of what is interesting and useful in what judges may have learned by studying municipal legal systems. Comparative scholarship is an obvious, rich, and strangely neglected source of guidance for international judges who wish to draw insights from legal systems outside international law.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".