Bibliographic record
Abstract
What legal duties do states owe those subject to their power? Typically, we look to public law to answer this question, defining the powers and duties of governments through constitutional law, administrative law, and international law, which we distinguish from the private law of contracts, property, and tort. It was not always this way, however. Recently, moreover, scholars are again looking to private law doctrines, concepts, and techniques to think about the powers and duties of states. It is a particularly promising moment for private law thinking about the state. The emergence of the “new private law,” as well as the “new legal criticism,” have enriched conceptual analysis and normative debate in private law. Against this backdrop, scholars have turned to private law to think about the powers and duties of states in public law. This Article, occasioned by a symposium on Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent's groundbreaking Fiduciaries of Humanity, takes stock of the private law state. It offers a qualified defense of private law theorizing about state powers and duties. The defense is that private law provides a set of lawyerly techniques for principled normative judgment in a plural world. The qualification is that private law cannot itself determine the solution to normative problems that it itself contains. Thinking about the state in terms of private law offers a way of recapturing normativity for public law, that is, a way of developing a moral brief against conceptions that place state sovereignty outside the rule of law. This transformation is as much as cultural and political as it is doctrinal and conceptual. The project of the private law state would, therefore, be significantly enriched by a critical engagement with the culture of legal practice and the limits of its political vision.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".