Book Review: Constitutional Rights After Globilization, by Gavin W. Anderson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years ago, the late Alan Freeman published a review essay in the American Bar Foundation Research Journal (precursor to Law and Social Inquiry) regarding a collection of papers edited by David Sugarman.3 Freeman took the occasion to theorize linkages between the left legal academic thought of the United Kingdom and the critical legal studies movement in the United States.For almost ten years, "critical legal thought [had] been threatening and destabilizingmainstream American legal thought," 4 wrote Freeman.First, there was a "pre-Marxist period of eclectic disillusionment," which prompted a wave of epistemological nihilism, followed by the "exhilarating" 5 rediscovery of Marx, which precipitated, finally, a strategy of avoiding the reduction of all to simple materialist analysis.Freeman described this last phase as "postcritical neolegalist Marxism," 7 which he associated with a move to legal pluralism in the United Kingdom: "The classic response to reductionism is to substitute multiplicities for singularities, to offer manyness instead of oneness, in short, to show that the world is more complicated (or more contradictory) than one had previously thought."' The Sugarman book exemplified this desire to create a role for law and legal institutions autonomous of the interests of the ruling class.For Freeman, this sort of move was unsatisfactory, as it returned critical '[Constitutional Rights].
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".