Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The global expansion of judicial power is one of the most significant developments in late-twentieth and early twenty-first-century government. Scholars have identified this trend as the ‘judicialization of politics’, ‘governing with judges’, and ‘juristocracy’, conceptualizing judges as ‘legislators in robes’ and suggesting that our time may well be defined as the ‘Judicial Era’. This chapter focuses on three key aspects of this trend: (i) the dramatic increase in the number and types of national and transnational courts and tribunals; (ii) the ever-growing significance of courts and judges in determining political and policy-making outcomes worldwide; and (iii) criticism of, resistance to, and occasional backlash against expanded judicial power. It concludes by suggesting that from epistemological and methodological standpoints, the global expansion of judicial power provides new opportunities to develop and test arguments concerning judicial behaviour across time and place. The rise of law, courts, and judges as critical forces in comparative and world politics further suggests that politics and law are becoming increasingly intertwined domains, affecting each other in intricate ways that are seldom acknowledged by doctrinal analyses. Consequently, traditional disciplinary boundaries between the study of law and politics become increasingly difficult to sustain.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".