Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the opening chapter, I spoke of the three paradoxes at the core of this book. Rules gain from being imperfect. Countries seek out flexibility provisions not in spite, but because of their constraints. And exceptions are designed to deal not with exceptional times per se , but rather with normalcy. I demonstrated the first point by surveying a number of different legal issue-areas, paying special attention to those where one might not expect to see allowances made for circumstances: canon law, religious rules, just war theory, human rights law. All feature flexibility provisions of one form or another, and in all cases these lead to similar concerns about abuse, and solutions that share a set of common points. I then offered evidence for the second paradox of flexibility: loose exceptions in history have not fared well—not because they were abused, but because they fell into disuse. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus has become nothing short of a taboo in international law, even as it is woven into some of its core provisions. The GATT national security exception is avoided by member states at all costs, even if it means being branded in violation. Comparing countries’ reliance on actionable trade remedies versus binding overhang suggests that to this day, countries find value in the constraints of flexibility provisions. Governments seek paperwork. This brings me to the third paradox of flexibility, which I have highlighted less explicitly throughout the book, but which should be growingly apparent by now. The full meaning of the old maxim “necessity knows no law,” which retains much of its relevance today, is that no amount of legal design can do much to affect behavior in extraordinary circumstances. That is the essence of the incomplete contract. The aim of flexibility provisions is to identify valid necessity – extreme hunger in the biblical story of David and the showbread, unforeseen surges of imports in the trade regime – but not actually to affect behavior in its midst. Legal provisions may, at most, compel countries to do things like notify others of the occurrence of hard times and of the actions taken to address them. But they can do little to actually regulate behavior under those hard times. Rather, the concern is to delineate valid necessity, and avoid actions taken in its midst from spilling over . The concern is with what comes after a brush with necessity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".