MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399173337 · doi:10.3138/utlj-2024-0005

The law of international society: A road not taken

2024· article· en· W4399173337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martti Koskenniemi

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As I argued in my Gentle Civilizer of Nations, modern international law arose in the last third of the nineteenth century. At the time, as well as long into the twentieth century, its ideological centre lay in the concept of ‘civilization.’ This was a profoundly hierarchical notion that projected a particular developmental frame for all nations. That concept was embedded in a certain theory about history and statehood that was particularly well developed in German public law. However, by the mid-nineteenth century, another view to think about law, politics, and statehood was developing in Europe that focused on the concept of ‘society.’ This had its British, French, and Italian versions, but I want to focus on a German approach that, at one point, became a rival to old Staatslehre and the historical school. This had also an internationalist variant that was critical of old formalist public law and worked with a notion of ‘international society’ ( internationale Gemeinschaft). In this article, I want to examine the ascent of this notion, the brief moment when it seemed to provide a modern alternative to older ways in which to think about the laws of statehood and the international realm and its eventual demise at the time of the establishment of the Institut de droit international in 1873.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.053
Scholarly communication0.0190.037
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0120.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207