Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is inevitably a problem of terminology. A professor of government once said that federalism “is what political scientists talk about when they talk about federalism,” and one could add that globalization is what political scientists (and lawyers) talk about when they talk about globalization. Moreover, the more one reads about globalization the more uncertain one is about the underlying assumptions behind the use of the term; and it is particularly difficult to assess the changing role and responses of the national courts of law in the face of globalization. One looks in vain for globalization as an item in the index of leading works—certainly in the United Kingdom—on constitutional and administrative law; but there is at the same time a growing recognition of the global implications of many areas of law hitherto regarded as part of national legal systems, as well as an acceptance of the enhanced role of international bodies and tribunals. Before one is submerged, however, in the welter of considerations touching on international trade, criminal law, privatization, deregulation, international arbitration, the settlement of disputes, the impact of public international law, the protection of the environment, the Internet and the revolution in technology, international cooperation, regional cooperation, terrorism, antitrust laws, and so much else, it is perhaps desirable to look at some recent cases—in the United States, in South Africa, in the United Kingdom, and in Canada—where values or techniques have been adopted and used in national courts in a way not anticipated only a short time ago. This is not to trespass into a discussion at this stage of adjudication by external institutions. The immediate concern is with the possible internationalization of national laws. In May 2002, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor addressed the Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute on “the internationalization of American 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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".