Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay is an extended commentary on the recently-published (2014) essay collection entitled Re-Interpreting Blackstone’s Commentaries: A Seminal Text in National and International Contexts, edited by Wilfrid Prest. The collection is an important element in an ongoing multi-year project of engagement with Blackstone based at the University of Adelaide. It has staked out an ambitious interpretive terrain. In matters of interpretation, essayists move beyond legal analysis and legal history to literary criticism and art history. In assessing the Commentaries’ dissemination and impact, they pursue Blackstone beyond the usual concentration on the British Atlantic world into new, less familiar climes – the French Atlantic (Louisiana and Quebec) and Australasia. In charting the Commentaries’ influence, finally, they move beyond the history of common law adjudication to the distinctly contemporary subject of American constitutional originalism and its genealogy. The essay finds that *Re-Interpreting Blackstone’s Commentaries* is both enjoyable and instructive. Given the challenge of circumstance – an exceptionally familiar work written by a ‘conventionally dull’ man – this is no small achievement. The essay concludes with commentary on the place of Blackstone in the history of Australian settler-colonialism, with particular reference to the leading (indigenous land rights) cases of the past half century. It reflects on the place of history in native title litigation, and also on the meaning of resort to Blackstone by indigenous activists and their allies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.005 |
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".