Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter introduces the Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law. Transnational law is at the center of lively discussions ranging from pronouncing the death of law to announcing the renewal of law. With stakes that high, the expectations for this field are potentially overwhelming. It is still unsettled what transnational law is. It was introduced to a wide audience of international lawyers in the 1950s, but is it a “new” legal field, or a particular kind of jurisprudence of “law and globalization,” or a sociolegal approach to law’s transformation in and beyond the state in the twenty-first century, or merely a synonym for legal pluralism, that is, an acknowledgment of the co-existence of law and (social, cultural, economic, religious, and other) norms? Finally, what is transnational law’s relation to the nation-state? While some suggest it marks the “end” of the nation-state, the better arguments suggest it remains closely intertwined with the state’s trials and tribulations. The chapter reviews contributions to these discussions but cannot account for the entire wealth and depth which is transnational law today. Instead, the chapter highlights some of the debates around the facets of transnational law and sketches a number of methodological reflections about the field. The contributing authors to this Handbook offer formidable insights into the complex details of law’s transnationalization in a wide range of key areas of the law and contextualize these developments against the background of the important normative discussions around the future of law in a globalized world.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".