Introduction to special issue: Keebet von Benda-Beckmann, intellectual legacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
this chapter celebrates and reviews the many contributions of Keebet von Benda-Beckmann (1946-2022) but also points to future research directions that have emerged from the inter-connected threads in her oeuvre, threads that have influenced younger scholars.these are topics that have long been a point of contact between legal scholars, anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists.chief among these, of course, is Legal Pluralism.this introduction to the special issue in commemoration of Keebet von Benda-Beckmann lines up with the text published in this journal 10 years ago commemorating Franz von Benda-Beckmann.the aim remains the same: we highlight some central theses in Keebet's intellectual oeuvre that have in the course of years become integral components of the conceptual portfolio of Legal Pluralism studies and have contributed to the further development of theorizing in legal anthropology.We argue that current future oriented research in Legal Pluralism can gain insight into some of the main challenges legal anthropology is facing in the era of the Anthropocene from the ways Keebet has anticipated sociolegal developments and has addressed the normativity of their possible future trajectories.Moreover, we intend to differentiate distinct intellectual layers of knowledge production in Keebet's work, the combination of various strands of research that were unique to her trajectory on the one hand, and the research agenda she pursued, teaming up with her husband, the late Franz von Benda-Beckmann, on the other.In a subsequent overview, we relate the contributions to this special issue to Keebet's main fields of research mentioned in this introduction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.028 |
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".