MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799386954 · doi:10.1017/s0069005800008067

Utopia without Apology: Form and Imagination in the Work of Ronald St. John Macdonald

2003· article· en· W2799386954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen Knop

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUtopiaTopos theoryNarrativeLawThe ImaginaryIdeal (ethics)SociologyPower (physics)PoliticsCreativityLaw and economicsPhilosophyAestheticsEpistemologyLiteraturePolitical scienceLinguisticsPsychoanalysisPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The word “utopia” is a pun on eu topos (a good place) and ou topos (no place). While utopia in the sense of eu topos refers to an ideal society and its realization, utopia in the sense of ou topos emphasizes a mode of narrative rather than a political goal. Traditionally, the utopian form is a traveller’s account of a visit to an imaginary country where the journey is either to a far-off land or to the distant future. This article offers an appreciation of Ronald St. John Macdonald as a practitioner, presenter, and promoter of the utopian form in international law. Beyond the ability of a particular eu-topia to confront us with a complete package of ideas for international law that would otherwise remain unimagined, ou-topia generally encourages comprehensive and radical thinking about international law’s future and perhaps even jolts us into a heightened consciousness of our creativity and potential for change. The article also touches on the corresponding disadvantages of utopias and speculates that Macdonald reconciles the advantages and disadvantages partly through the fact that the power of the utopian form is available even to those who have been historically and unjustly excluded from international 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.046
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit internationalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207