Ascertaining the Juridical Basis of International Law by Analyzing the Move-structures of Treaties: A Possible Linguistics-oriented Exploration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treaties (conventions), international custom and the general principles of law generally constitute the formal sources of international law. The present linguistics-oriented study of exploring the juridical basis of international law specifically focuses on analyzing that of treaties. An empirical study of the linguistic expressions and forms of the treaties is supposed to probe into what the contracting parties really think when adopting the treaty texts. It applies the move structure approach of English linguistics for the purpose of ascertaining the juridical basis of treaties. After the generalization of a prototypical six-move-structure existing in treaties, this article specially makes a focal study on the second and third moves of the treaties, managing to find out the linguistic evidence of ascertaining the juridical basis of the treaties. “The Contracting Parties’ Shared Conviction in Common Good as opinio juris” in Step 1 of “Move 2 Establishing Contextual Foundations for the Present Legislation” is ascertained as the juridical basis of international law from the linguistics-oriented perspective.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".