Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whatever else it might be or have, the common law has legs. It remains a vibrant force that has managed to retain its prominence and rigor through dint of its stamina and versatility. It is obviously not a “thing of beauty” that is “a joy for ever” whose “loveliness increases” – it very much has its sore spots, unsightly features, and ugly postures. But a little like Keats’ conception of beauty, the common law likely “will never pass into nothingness.” It has exhibited a tenacity and a familiarity that has enabled it to maintain the allegiance of its professional corps, who in turn have succeeded sufficiently to convince people, high and low, that it is an institutional practice worth preserving. The common law is a showcase or a shambles, depending on your point of view, by virtue of the talents of those lawyers who work with it and the interests of those litigants who must rely on it. There are some true believers who insist that the common law, a little like the market, is much more than the sum of its discrete decisions. Following the lead of a Lord Mansfield (who, at the time, was still Mr. Murray, a young solicitor general) in an eighteenth-century case, such true believers opine that “the common law works itself pure by rules drawn from the fountain of justice.” In this lofty account, the common law is cast as both the expression and repository of a political insight that transcends the bounds of its temporary articulation – there is a balance between the law's immanence (i.e., the idea of law as the rational embodiment of an indwelling justice) and the law's instrumentality (i.e., the practice of using law as an institutional tool for settling social problems).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.164 | 0.068 |
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".