Why (Despite Powerful Reservations) Law Matters: Reply to Comments on<i>Why Law Matters</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why Law Matters defends the view that public institutions and legal procedures are not merely means to secure independently specifiable ends. They are constituent aspects of a just society, and the contribution they make to it is not contingent. Instead, various legal institutions and legal procedures that are often perceived as contingent means to facilitate the realization of valuable ends matter as such . I am immensely grateful for the opportunity that I was given to defend this book at the Centre for Ethics at the University of Toronto. The vibrant academic community in Toronto is the one that is responsible for my conversion from an orthodox instrumentalist to a skeptical noninstrumentalist. In Why Law Matters , I pointed that: Had [this book] been written when I first planned and hoped to write it, I would have defended all these themes as passionately as I defend in this book their negation. I feel lucky that this book was not written when it was first planned. (p. 1)
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 | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.053 | 0.072 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".