Law as a Mediating Institution of History: The Approach and Strategy of Harold Innis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little has been written on Harold Innis’s analysis of law. Despite his intention as a young man to pursue law as a career, his dedicated assessment of the subject emerged only in his later years amidst his concerns about the fate of Western civilization and the role that Canada might play in its rehabilitation. By treating law as an institution that reflects and affects (or mediates) cultural capacities, Innis tried to bring attention to something he thought the modern West lacked: a means of rebalancing the values of order and freedom. This, he thought, had become an urgent task given the neglect of the latter in favour of the former. Aspects of the Roman law tradition, he believed, were influencing a dangerous centralization of power, while a neglect of dialogical attributes of English common law also had harmful implications. Innis was particularly interested in tracing the underpinnings and implications of these legal traditions as well as their foundations in natural law, which he addressed in terms of its potential to influence future developments in Canadian culture in ways that might counterbalance the destructive characteristics of American imperialism. In the end, Innis related his mostly historical analysis to the post-war dominance of the United States and its role in undermining what he believed civilization needed to survive – cultural conditions enabling self-reflective thought. In sum, this article presents an overview of Innis’s largely forgotten analysis of law, explaining it in the context of his intellectual processes and strategic concerns regarding the fate of humanity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".