Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karen Knop’s fresh reading of James Lorimer’s The Institutes of the Law of Nations (1883) recovered the image of what she termed ‘the private citizens of the world.’ She introduced this figure from Lorimer’s forays into private international law in order to investigate to what extent the attributes of private citizens of the world are restored or refracted through public international law doctrines and theories. But how should private international law re-engage with the private citizens of the world? I caution that, by reference to this familiar figure, one may too easily ascribe either an inherent humanism or an inherent agnosticism to private international law. Neither would be in line with Karen’s critical project. By contrast, I suggest that Karen’s revival of the private citizens of the world should prompt private international law scholars to look carefully into their field’s past and present and reckon with the field’s more ambivalent humanism. This article travels past Lorimer’s writings into the inter-war period to reveal the fragility of sustaining the private citizens of the world via private international law in Europe, Latin America, and the British Empire. It suggests that those historical puzzles at the root of private international law’s ambivalent humanism continue to this day.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".