Bibliographic record
Abstract
A professor is brought before a secret tribunal in his law faculty for the purpose of deciding the appropriateness of a student's grade. The grounds of the grade appeal are that the professor had taught critically instead of practically and that be had done so with an academic bias and prejudice. He is also alleged to have taught philosophy rather than law. After many hours of examination and cross-examination as a defendant and as an expert witness, the professor, Flink. begins a dialogue with a spirit in an effort to understand the nature and identity of law. Flink comes to appreciate that law is a displacing discourse rather than a structure of categories signified in an official writing. The analytic method familiar to officials in common law jurisdictions, Flink comes to understand, excludes the experiential meanings that are manifested through unwritten gestures and rituals. Officials embody signs with experiential expectations and past assumptions. The embodiment of meaning brings life into legal language. But such an embodiment is forgotten as officials decompose textual fragments and reported social events into analytic units. Legal analysis is so successful that officials even forget that they had forgotten something so important as the embodiment of meaning.The professor and the spirit also ask whether justice is an 'ought' and where one can locate such an 'ought'. They conclude that there is a structure within which legal officials reason. The exteriority of the structure is an unwritten 'ought' realm. But the struc ture possesses a gap, which enters into such an unanalysable object-less realm. Analytic reasoning has assumed that reason can take an official only so far until she or he must journey outside the structure to an unanalysable realm of personal values. However, the embodiment of meanings also incorporates unwritten collective values of which officials, precisely because of the success of the analysis project in forgetting that something was forgotten, have never been conscious. It is such an unanalysable realm that grounds or authorises the analytic project. The exterior authorising origin of the analytic units of the structure rests upon a possibility that requires faith on the part of the officials, a faith that there exists a foundation, radically different from the analytic units, on the other side of the structure. The officials can, at best, imagine or picture the authorising origin, located as it is in the unanalysable object-less realm exterior to the written language of the structure. The imagined origin takes the 'form' of a bodiless spirit The officials (and the professor and spirit) are haunted by the possibility that the structure of humanly posited rules are ultimately authorised by a spirit.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".