MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Komu służy prawo? Libertariańska koncepcja Alberta Jaya Nocka

2021· article· en· W3217627801 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olgierd Górecki

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Iuridica Lublinensia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrinePositivismObject (grammar)Argument (complex analysis)LawState (computer science)EpistemologyLibertarianismElement (criminal law)Government (linguistics)Political scienceLaw and economicsSociologyPhilosophyMathematicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Albert Jay Nock (1870–1945) was a prominent opinion journalist of the first half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, considered a representative of the first generation of libertarianism. The article is aimed at finding an answer to the question: Whom – according to Nock – does law serve? A key element of the problem is the internal dichotomy of the concept of law, which not only can be seen through the prism of the positivist-legal paradigm, but also constitutes the pillar of the jusnaturalistic concept. To properly arrange the object of study, the thesis was used according to which in Nock’s doctrine the existence of radically different assessment of the nature of man and his individual goals from the nature of the functioning of the State allows us to demonstrate the dichotomy of two opposing legal orders that serve the welfare of different entities (the individual and the State). To systematize the argument, the concept of the individual and his relations with the State was first presented, and then the dichotomy of the government and the State was discussed, which ultimately finally allowed to analyze the relationship between natural law and positive law.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Iuridica LublinensiaSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207