Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Extract] Contemporary philosophy of law focuses strongly on the idea that law is a socially recognised standard for conduct. Legal positivism, the dominant tradition in contemporary jurisprudence, seeks to understand the nature of law primarily by unpacking the notion of social recognition and its connection to legal normativity. The legal positivist project proceeds on the basis that an adequate and informative descriptive theory of law, including its claims to authority and role in social discourse, can be constructed by examining its dependence on social sources. Philosophy of law, on this view, does not necessarily rely on ethics or political philosophy for a full account of the nature of law or its place in social life. This approach to legal philosophy, however, would have seemed bizarre for much of human history. The vast bulk of legal theories throughout history have proceeded on the basis that an adequate and informative descriptive theory of law must also examine its normative basis in ethics and politics. This assumption flows through the otherwise diverse accounts of law advanced by classical authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. These authors adopt a shared methodology that differs sharply from the descriptive orientation of analytical jurisprudence. They begin with an account of practical rationality grounded in the ultimate ends of human action, before exploring the role of the community in promoting human flourishing through engagement with these ends. Law is then understood in terms of its role in enabling the members of the community to lead flourishing lives.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".