Bibliographic record
Abstract
Always More Than You Can SeeAs would seem appropriate for this occasion, this commentary is but a small attempt to illuminate some central features of Harry Arthurs and his work being celebrated.The strong interconnections between the themes in Arthurs' work are readily apparent.These themes are, for obvious reasons, on the agenda of contemporary (labour, and general) legal analysis and legal reform debates.And yet, this does not render the commentator's task any easier.While it might seem obvious that a short commentary in this context should aspire to be, at best, a brief exposition of the insights and further questions raised by the celebrated scholarship, it presents quite a challenge to take the first suitable steps in this undertaking.The famous "three remarks," "four points," or "five theses" that speakers at comparable occasions usually resort to as a springboard or a safety net for their discussion cannot hide the problem that the chosen, allegedly "central notions," "key concepts," or "guiding questions" might all just be very arbitrary choices.The key notions identified in somebody else's thinking are in fact the very foundations and expressions of one's own restlessness and wonder.Similar to the
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".