Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of the sociology of law has to date been defined too narrowly. Positive law as conceived by jurists, that is law related to the State in one way or another through the legislator, the courts or the law itself, has generally been recognized as the object of the sociology of law. Sociology of law has therefore remained too much within the legal ideology that dominates not only the legal profession but the overall culture of modern Western societies. It is suggested that the notion of "legal order" should furnish the appropriate object for the sociology of law, provided it is defined broadly enough to cover all the legal orders existing in a given society. This first requires a definition of law not only in terms of norms, rules and principles, but as a living institution that includes all agents and/'or organizations that contribute to produce, interpret and apply the law. And secondly, it requires considering State legal order as just one of all the legal orders that co-exist in a society. It should be sociology's task to identify the numerous non-State legal orders and to analyse the complex set of interrelationships among them and with the State legal order. This broadened pluralistic line of thought follows the leads provided long ago by Max Weber and Santi Romano, which have not to date been paid all the attention they deserve.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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".