Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Defending the idea of “unwritten law” has never been easy. Jeremy Bentham thought the very expression to be a “paradoxical and unmeaning epithet.” In his view, social reform required “fixed and accurate” laws – laws that “[w]e see, we hear, we touch; in short we handle…” This empirical concept of law follows from the ideal of law as something produced by conscious acts of sovereign will. Central to this concept are, to use H.L.A. Hart's expression, “rules of change” that permit societies to escape the confines of “primitive” custom. The progressive march of legal theory, it may be said, has been away from medieval notions of law as customs practiced time out of mind or as the immutable dictates of natural law, away from the fiction that judges discover rather than make law, and towards modern notions of law as creative political acts recorded in writing. In terms of constitutional law, this march leads to the idea of written constitutionalism, a destination that the rebelling American colonists are often said to have reached first. It was a task especially “reserved” to the American people, wrote Alexander Hamilton, to demonstrate to the world that constitutions might be established through “reflection and choice” rather than “accident and force.” In contrast to the unwritten British constitution, about which there was “nothing visible, nothing real,” the U.S. Constitution was a “certain and fixed” law “delineated by the mighty hand of the people,” the “work or will” of a populace acting in its “original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity.”
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".