Globalisation and Legal Scholarship: William Twining's Call for Revolutionary Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that William Twining, in Globalisation and Legal Scholarship, is calling for the adoption of a revolution-producing/enabling process and a revolution-ready mindset by legal scholars. The identified process and mindset results from taking a global perspective, which includes looking across time, disciplines, cultures and legal structures so as to challenge the underlying and unquestioned assumptions of our legal theories. The paper employs the works of two other authors, Thomas Samuel Kuhn and Doris Lessing, to expand on Twining’s process and identify the deep purpose for the adoption of the proposed process. The paper ends by applying this Twiningian process to income taxation in order to challenge the currently accepted/assumed purpose of income taxation and to develop an alternate purpose (and explore the implications of this alternate purpose) for income taxation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".