Проявление Силы Вестфальского Мифа в Международном Праве (The Influence of the Westphalian Myth in International Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russian Abstract: В своей работе, впервые опубликованной в 2000 г., автор данной статьи занял твердую позицию скептика Вестфалии, демонстрируя с точ- ки зрения истории международного права, что мирные договоры 1648 г. являются для международного сообщества не более чем мифом о проис- хождении. Настоящая статья обосновывает данное утверждение с эмпи- рической точки зрения, рассматривая реальные юридические документы, подписанные в конце Тридцатилетней войны в Европе. В заключительной части статьи высказывается мнение, что, несмотря на то что это лишь «миф о происхождении», Вестфальский мир имеет огромную популярность в коллективном сознании общества. English Abstract: In his work, first published in 2000, the author of this article took the firm position of the skeptic of Westphalia, demonstrating from the point of view of the history of international law that the peace treaties of 1648 are nothing more than a of origin for the international community. This article justifies this statement from an empirical point of view, considering the real legal documents signed at the end of the Thirty Years' War in Europe. In the concluding part of the article, the opinion is expressed that, in spite of the fact that this is only a myth about the origin, the Westphalian world is very popular in the collective consciousness of society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".