ARCHITECTURE, RITUALS, AND NORMS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the authors identify two important gaps in the literature on civil justice reform, both of which relate to the concept of stability in the law as an added value of public adjudication. The article aims to suggest avenues for future research on civil justice reform, especially in light of increasing recourse to private modes of dispute resolution. First, the article draws attention to the role played by judicial rituals and architecture in court-based, public adjudication, as a means of generating stability in the law and enhancing the legitimacy of dispute resolution. Second, from a more theoretical perspective, the article brings out the added value of formulating and formalizing legal norms through a public adjudicative process. Stability in the law encourages human agency and dignity by permitting individuals to form expectations and make decisions about their lives, acting in reliance on the law and the values that the law promotes. The value of stability must be taken into account in future research and policy work on civil justice reform, particularly as private justice, which lacks many of the characteristics that encourage stability in public adjudication, is increasingly explored as a potential solution to problems of access to justice.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".