Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origins of the learned law are inextricably interwoven with the origins of the Western university: the school, this peculiar space of ‘studious leisure.’ Despite the early legal academics’ involvement in legal practice and their integration into the environment of the newly flourishing urban space, it is obvious that legal texts produced by ‘learned’ authors also bore the marks of what Pierre Bourdieu has called the ‘scholastic point of view.’ The ‘scholastic point of view,’ Bourdieu has argued, is related to the specific and completely unique quality of thinking that takes place in academic space. Starting from this abstract conceptualization of this ‘scholastic’ condition, the paper focuses on the role of its concrete medieval expression, the phenomenon known as Scholasticism, as a structure that shaped the views of medieval jurists and therefore the character of medieval learned law. Scholasticism, I posit, could be understood not merely as a philosophy or a methodology, but, as Erwin Panofsky put it, as a ‘mental habit’. This (in the words of, again, Bourdieu) habitus grew out of the ‘daily life’ of the academy: academia constituted a ‘world apart’, a particular life-world in which the scholar was completely immersed. In order to illustrate that Scholasticism, thus perceived as habitus, did not only operate on a rational and conscious level, I am eventually highlighting one of the irrational aspects of the discourse of the learned law that can hardly be explained in functional or rational terms: drawing mainly on the works of Umberto Eco, Erwin Panofsky and legal theorists such as Pierre Schlag, I am drawing the attention of the reader to what could be called the legal aesthetics of the Scholastic jurists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".