Hubert Treiber and the <b> <i>Sociology of Law</i> </b> of Max Weber: From the Ideal Types of Legal Rationality to the Plurality of Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hubert Treiber has established himself as one of the world’s leading scholars of Weber, in particular of his Sociology of Law. Especially, Treiber defends Weber’s decisive contribution to legal pluralism , comparable to Eugen Ehrlich’s, although from a quite different perspective. Indeed, it is not possible to analyse Weber’s distinction between state and non-state law (a central distinction for legal pluralism) without taking into consideration what he means, sociologically, by “law” on the one hand and by “the state” on the other. Weber’s ideal typical construction of social relations under the category “law” requires an Archimedean point, which is the formal rationality of law , closely associated, at the end of an historical development, with the efforts of legal abstraction and systematisation by the proponents of Pandectism in modern Germany. In the following text, linked to some of Treiber’s major works, the author addresses first Weber’s analysis of the rationalities of law, and then deals with the question of the plurality of law, as these two aspects are closely intertwined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".