Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This book originates in a sense of puzzlement often experienced by scholars interested in jurisprudence. On the one hand, jurisprudence deals with abstract questions concerning the nature, structure, and distinctive features of law. Questions such as these are not system-specific: when jurisprudents theorize about such topics as nature of legal norms, the legal system, legal reasoning, and interpretation, they aim at producing a theory that is true of all possible legal norms—and not those that happen to be in force in some particular legal system. On the other, though, jurisprudents are tacitly influenced by their background institutional context. Even from the more limited vantage point of contemporary analytical jurisprudence as practised in the post-World War II Western world, one cannot help but notice a substantive divide between theorizing about the law in the civil law world (in particular, Continental Europe and Latin America) and in the common law world (the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)—a ‘cultural divide’ within analytic jurisprudence that has never been described or explained in a systematic way. The book fills this gap: it includes twelve chapters written by prominent and influential jurisprudents from the civil law world, which are meant to provide the idea of how a general treatise in jurisprudence would look like from the perspective of their tradition. Each chapter is then followed by a response by a jurisprudent from the common law world, which will help highlight what the two worlds share, where they part ways, and why.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".