Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have the pleasure of introducing this sixty-fifth volume of the American Journal of Comparative Law. This volume marks the fourth year of our tenure as Editors-in-Chief, as well as the fourth year that the Journal is hosted jointly at the Georgetown University Law Center and the McGill University Faculty of Law. This new volume is also the first one to be published by Oxford University Press. At the 2015 Annual Meeting in Dallas, after careful deliberation and based on thorough preparatory work, the plenary of American Society of Comparative Law decided to henceforth partner with a professional publisher in the production of the Journal. In spring 2016, an agreement between the Society and Oxford University Press was signed. This marks a momentous change: Throughout its long tradition, the American Journal of Comparative Law has particularly valued its model of independent publishing. As the current Editors-in-Chief, however, we strongly believe that in today’s complex and globally connected publishing environment, the best way to honor this longstanding commitment to excellence and to prepare the Journal for the future is by collaborating with an experienced and professional partner. We are grateful to those many members of the American Society of Comparative Law who have invested time and effort into the process that led to this partnership; gratitude is owed, in particular, to Gary Bell, Richard Kay, Matthias Reimann, and John Reitz, who, as members of the ad-hoc committees tasked with stewarding this endeavor, bore the brunt of the work involved and invested countless hours in the process of evaluating the pros and cons of this change in general, and, after a decision had been made in Dallas, diligently negotiated the contractual agreement with OUP. For us as Editors-in-Chief, the signing of the publishing agreement marked just the beginning of the true work of transition, but we are confident that the investment made now will pay off in the future and help to secure the Journal’s continued success in today’s—and tomorrow’s—publishing world. As was the case last year, the number of articles submitted from all over the world has remained very high. And as in the past four years, we have tried to remain faithful to the traditions that established the reputation of the Journal and have also endeavored to further increase the diversity of the published contributions. While quality in legal publications is difficult to express in numerical values, the results of the annual Journal Citation Report (JCR) from Thomson Reuters attest to the fact that the AJCL continues to publish relevant scholarship and has in fact even significantly increased its impact. The AJCL is now ranked twenty-seventh of the 147 journals in the law category of the report, having risen thirty-six places over the course of just two years. As we start the year 2017, we wish to express our gratitude for the work done by the members by the Executive Editorial Board and by our Book Review Editors, Professors Richard Albert and Paul Dubinsky. In addition, our Articles Editor, Jennifer Anderson, of the McGill University Faculty of Law, deserves a special “thank you” for the extraordinary quality of her work. As she will be leaving the Journal this year, we want to express to her our deepest gratitude for all the work she has done, and we also wish her the best for her professional career.
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 | 0.009 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.101 |
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".