Der Geist des Rechts in Jherings "Geist" und Jherings "Zweck" : Teil 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
150 years of glory and respect for two great books like Jhering’s "The Spirit of Roman Law" (1852 sqq.) and "Law as a Means to an End" (1877 sqq.) call for a small celebration in 15 stages. The familiar quotations from Jhering’s vigorous texts on "the last causes of law" are still used in the present debate. See for Ch. 1. to 8.: Rg 5 (2004) 128–149. Notwithstanding this, a view of the rich concrete themes in Spirit and Means amply repays all the effort (Ch. 9. and 10.). Our awareness has to be free of Jhering’s jest in his seriousness and of the deceiving gunpowder smoke of his and his reader’s conversion (in Ch. 11.). Jhering assumed a double task of jurisprudence on a fairly plain, scarcely original and entirely continuous basis. There was no need for a new juristic religion. His polemics are not important, but his method of creating juristic concepts (Ch. 12.) and his belief in a practical reason, which he justifies in his Means with ethics as a perfect example (Ch. 13.). His jurisprudence engages in a twofold task with new precision, empirical insight and normative judgement (Ch. 14.). And the celebration comes to its conclusion (Ch. 15.).
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".