Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has changed in the ten years since I argued for Levinasian alternatives to the law and economics movement in one of the first articles on Levinas to appear in a US law review. 1 Levinas scholarship has expanded considerably, especially with respect to the practical applications of his purposefully impractical philosophy. Despite his well-known aversion to the subject, Levinas’ political philosophy now receives considerable attention. 2 This seems inevitable given his status as one of the great thinkers of Judaism in an age in which Zionism plays such an enigmatic role in global affairs. Our desperation for a light to pierce the ethical fog of modernity and its imperialist wars also makes Levinas’ unyielding challenge to violence a welcome beacon. And as this volume, the spirited conference that gave rise to it, and Desmond Manderson’s Proximity , Levinas , and the Soul of Law demonstrate, Levinas now also provides inspiration for many legal theorists. 3 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".