Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Before we go further in developing an understanding of the common law, it will be useful to contrast its methods with those of the civil law. The identity of “civilian lawyers” is born when they go abroad. It is a little like being an “African.” Only when the Kenyan or Nigerian (or, the Kikuyu or Yoruba) comes to another continent does she begin to think of herself as an African. The same thing is true of lawyers in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Korea, and Japan. The sense that they all belong to the same “legal family” is acquired when they leave their homeland and confront the other family, the common law. The Francophones of Québec think of themselves as adherents of the “civil law” only because they are confronted on a daily basis with the “other”—the Anglophone common lawyers. But the Germans and French and Spaniards read few contemporary books about the “civil law” and do not use a term in their respective languages to refer to themselves as “civil lawyers.” Their common identity is geographical, not legal. They think of themselves most likely as Germans, French, or Spaniards or, increasingly, as “Europeans”— perhaps as “Continental Europeans” to distinguish themselves from the English, Scots, and Irish.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads 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".