Bibliographic record
Abstract
A traditional understanding of the sourcesSources of international law according to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice denotes States as the predominant law-makers, and considers domestic case law to be merely a subsidiary source of law. This is a static view of the law, which does not take into account the actual processes by which certain branches of international law are formed. A more dynamic view is therefore proposed in this chapter. Law is understood not just as a reflection of policy, but as a process of interaction between various participants and policy-makers, such as judges, lawyers, scholars as well as formal law-makers. This dynamic view captures the way in which international law in general, and ICL in particular, is constantly being developed. It also allows a realistic view of the role of domestic law as it is translated to the international plane, which is necessary if we are to understand the ways in which modes of liability are developed and debated. ICL is conceived of as comparative law in action, whereby domestic criminal law notions are patchworked together to form a new body of law. A dynamic comparative theoryComparative theory of ICL is offered both as a methodology for understanding the process by which ICL develops, and as a method for analysing the question which model of liability is most appropriate for ICL. A comparative perspective on this patchworkingPatchworking can alleviate the current clash of legal cultures observable in the debates on liability, and can aid in making a selection from among all the possible translationsTranslation from domestic criminal law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".