MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spacetime in/and Law

2020· book-chapter· en· W3001695852 on OpenAlexaff
Mariana Valverde

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporalitiesTemporalitySpacetimeConstruct (python library)DisciplineSpace (punctuation)EpistemologySociologyLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Philosophers have explored the varying temporalities that different legal systems and techniques utilize or construct. Recently, a lively literature on law, space, and regulation has also flourished, mainly among geographers and urban studies scholars. While legal temporalities and legal spaces or spatializations are often discussed separately, in large part due to disciplinary barriers, this chapter shows that it is more appropriate to think about the “spacetime” of law and legal processes rather than engage only with either temporality or space.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207