Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume developed out of a 2010 conference on "New Perspectives on Legal Pluralism" organized by Lauren Benton and Richard Ross through the Symposium on Comparative Early Modern Legal History.Richard Ross oversees the Symposium, which gathers each year under the auspices of the Center for Renaissance Studies at the Newberry Library in Chicago to discuss the comparative legal history of the Atlantic world in the period c. 1492 to 1815.Proliferating scholarship on the layered, jurisdictionally complex, and multicentric nature of law in overseas empires suggested the value of a conference assessing legal pluralism in colonial settings.The rich papers presented at the "New Perspectives on Legal Pluralism" symposium, together with the valuable conversation they inspired among participants, prompted the organizers to think of assembling a volume on the subject.The editors wished to produce a volume that studied the provenance, meaning, and implications of legal pluralism across a wide range of early modern empires, in settings as far apart as Peru and New Zealand, and in every century between 1500 and the middle of the nineteenth century.To that end, we drew from contributions by participants in the symposium and also invited other scholars to write for the volume.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.411 | 0.252 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".