Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notwithstanding deep points of disagreement, there is a general — albeit largely implicit — consensus among theorists of the rule of law around what we call the public law presumption: the view that the rule of law is essentially a public law doctrine. We see this view expressed in influential accounts of the rule of law including the work of Dicey, Hayek, Fuller, and Raz. The goal of this book is to challenge the public law presumption. The chapters in this collection all consider the idea that the rule of law concerns the nature of law generally and the conditions under which any relationship — between citizens as well as between citizens and the state — becomes subject to law. They address two major questions. The first question is whether our understanding of the rule of law is enriched by considering how and to what degree it is expressed or realized in private law. For example, many of the chapters address the ways in which the private law secures rule of law values such as non-arbitrariness and guidance. The second question is whether our understanding of the private law is enriched by adding the principles of the rule of law to the traditional list of core private law concepts. For example, many of the chapters show how private law concerns are usefully illuminated through rule of law themes, including strict liability, limitation periods, equity, and ‘boilerplate’. This introduction introduces these themes and the chapters of this volume.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".