Harnessing the transformative potential of Earth System Law: From theory to practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earth System Law has been proposed as an alternative conceptual framework to animate and support more adequate legal responses to planetary change. The emerging Earth System Law literature has sketched the contours of this new legal paradigm and reflected on its implications for the legal scholarly community. However, to date, less attention has been paid to the challenges of harnessing the transformative potential of Earth System Law; that is, its promise to evolve from a theoretically innovative perspective to facilitating positive, on-the-ground change. In this paper, we therefore ask: Which issues and questions will the Earth System Law research community have to engage with to ensure that Earth System Law is able to initiate and drive the processes of transformative change which it purports to support? And, which starting points can we identify for productively engaging with these issues? Responding to these questions, we articulate a theory-to-practice agenda which sets out departure points for working towards Earth System Law finding resonance in practice.
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 | 0.074 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".