MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200149568 · doi:10.1017/9781108894760.012

The School of Salamanca: A Common Law?

2021· book-chapter· en· W4200149568 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Duve

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Legal Studies and Society
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxeologyLawAppropriationNormativeLegal historyPolitical scienceState (computer science)SociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

H. Patrick Glenn has built his idea of legal traditions, common laws, and the cosmopolitan state by observing the evolution of law. He learned a lot from legal history. But what can legal historians learn from him? In this chapter, I show that his idea of legal traditions as normative information, which has spread into all legal systems in a large recursive process of appropriation and change, can be at least very stimulating for current attempts at a global legal history. The example of the School of Salamanca, which Glenn once described as Hispanic common law and which I will introduce in the first section of this chapter, shows the opportunities, but also the limits of his approach. The latter lie, in particular, in the fact that one can hardly analyse the processes of cultural translation observed without also taking into account praxeological aspects. It is precisely these conditions of the cultural translation of normative information that may have been of particular importance for the development of what Glenn envisioned as a ‘cosmopolitan law’.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.201 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicHistorical Legal Studies and Society→French-language works237,207→