Journal of the History of International Law Revue d'histoire du droit international
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d'histoire du droit international (JHIL) is an interdisciplinary journal on the history of international law with a broad outreach.It is placed among the top international law journals which are regularly consulted by all international lawyers with a general interest in the history of their field.It provides a forum for the emerging and expanding scholarship that takes a historical approach to exploring a wide range of issues in international law.It accommodates the growth in interest in the histories of international law from scholars working in related fields (such as global history, imperial history, intellectual history and international relations).It creates a venue for ground-breaking work in this field by combining tradition with innovation and to provide the opportunity to develop sustained critical engagement with work on the history of international law.The Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d'histoire du droit international encourages critical reflection on the classical grand narrative of international law as the purveyor of peace and civilisation to the whole world.It specifically invites articles on extra-European experiences and forms of legal relations between autonomous communities which were discontinued as a result of domination and colonisation by European Powers.It is open to all possibilities of telling the history of international law, while respecting the necessary rigour in the use of records and sources.It is a forum for a plurality of visions of the history of international law, but also for debate on such plurality itself, on the methods, topics, and usages, as well as the bounds and dead-ends of this discipline.Moreover, it devotes space to examining in greater depth specific themes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".