GLOBAL REACH, LOCAL GRASP: CONSTRUCTING EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reach of national law is often greater than its grasp. Although Canada has effective legal power over its territory and all within it, Canadian interests are no longer confined exclusively within Canadian borders. Canada thus finds it increasingly necessary to consider asserting its legal jurisdiction beyond its frontiers. Such extraterritorial assertion of Canadian legal authority may run into strong opposition from other countries, who might view Canada as attempting to intervene in their own national territories and domestic affairs. Likewise, other states, under the same pressures of globalization, may try to extend their legal reach into Canadian territory, where they are likely to be rebuffed with equal indignation. Yet the rapidly growing volume and variety of transnational interactions between people, activities, and events, which constitute the engine of globalization, ensure that the extraterritorial application of national legal powers cannot be avoided. This paper sets out an analytical framework to be applied in answering the set of complex and interlinked questions that arise when Canada is faced with the issue of whether to act extraterritorially. It does so taking into account the many different factual contexts in which issues of extraterritoriality arise.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".