Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muslim law and Customary law', and 'Common Law and Civil Law'.It is thus apparent that all the legal traditions-the Western, Eastern, Asian, Jewish, Islamic and Sub-Saharan-have provided the basic legal material from which this heterogenous array of hybrids was created. 3The reader will find the categories and combinations of the Ottawa study set out in Appendix A. The so-called 'Mixed Jurisdictions' make up roughly sixteen political entities, of which twelve are independent countries.Most are the former colonial possessions of France, the Netherlands or Spain which at some time in history acquired by Great Britain or the United States.Scotland and Israel, however, are exceptions to this pattern.An important difference of opinion, however, exists over the proper meaning and constituent elements of a mixed system.There are really two camps.Scholars in the classic "mixed jurisdiction" tradition, tend to follow the footsteps of early British comparatists (see Part II below), and they tend to focus upon a single kind of hybrid where most of the comparative research has been done.These scholars have focused their attention upon the systems which straddle Common law and Civil law. 4 If their perspective is accepted, the number of mixed systems in the world shrinks to fewer than twenty countries. 5However, many scholars of legal pluralism (which includes the comparatists who conducted the Ottawa study just mentioned) use a more expansive, factually-oriented approach that absorbs the classical "mixed jurisdictions' into a larger mass of "mixed legal systems," which not only exponentially enlarges the field but leaves classifications in disarray.In this Article I will be concerned with understanding the origins, implications and insights of these two rival theories of mixed systems.Since the classical idea 'mixed jurisdiction' had historical priority over that of the "mixed legal system" tout court, we may turn to the earlier idea first. II. THE CLASSICAL MIXED JURISDICTION CONCEPTION-ORIGINSAt the beginning of the twentieth century many western jurists tended to think in bipolar terms: on the one side there was the empire of 3. Id.4.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it