Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of positivist jurisprudence and public law theory celebrates an idea of the ‘legal official’ as one appointed and identified by law to claim and wield law’s powers over subjects. That idea treats the official as the holder of an office constituted by law and so relies heavily upon law’s fabricated normativity and its insulation from social and moral normativity. This article challenges that view by drawing a distinction between ‘law’s offices’ and ‘officials of the law.’ More precisely, it distinguishes the status of office-holding under the law from the moral standing of ‘officiality’ carried by officials of the law and transmitted through practices of recognition of the role of official. The article challenges positivist orthodoxy to account for the moral standing that recognition carries into the role of official, alongside the institutional rules of office. In a response to John Gardner’s work on ‘officials of the law,’ which insists upon the morally laden role of official but avoids an over-moralized account of law’s normativity, I argue that recognition generates and carries moral normativity within and between the roles of official and subject in a way that inserts such recognition, and the role of official, into the story of law’s normativity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".