Review of 'Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy', Matthias Klatt, Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Institutionalized Reason is a collection of essays whose aim is to explore the relationship among rights, morality and law using the work of Robert Alexy as an anchor. The book grew out of a symposium held at New College, Oxford, in 2008. The specific focus of this book is Alexy’s work on constitutional law and legal philosophy, particularly his work regarding the nature of law, the nature of legal argumentation, and the nature of constitutional rights. Edited by Matthias Klatt, Professor of Law at the University of Hamburg, this book is a collaboration with leading scholars of legal philosophy and constitutional rights. The result is a collection of essays that not only allow the reader to gain a general understanding of Alexy’s main ideas (with some of their strengths and challenges), but also provides the reader with an integrated understanding of the actors and debates (within the Western/Northern tradition) that Alexy’s work is, directly and indirectly, in dialogue with.[...]This book review is much heftier than ordinary reviews for two reasons. The first is that the book is a collection of essays, which renders the review longer due to the necessity of having to encounter (in perhaps too superficial a way in most instances) a number of themes and authors. The second reason is that the book is a collection of works by leading scholars in the field working in Western/Northern institutions but focusing on an author who is not as well known as he ought to be to the North American scholarly audience. As such, the review includes a short biographical note on Alexy, and provides (what I believe is) some apt criticism.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".