Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anxieties about the viability and future of the liberal international order have been multiplying in both scholarly discussions and the popular press. But what does the “coming apart of the liberal international order” actually mean? Some commentators point to sanctions and tariffs that are destroying free trade; and some are focusing on democratic backsliding, the rise of populism and the crumbling of human rights protections (especially in international migration). An arguably more fundamental, and equally worrying, shift is discussed in three recent books: the end of territorial jurisdiction, and with it, a deep uncertainty in what independence, sovereign equality, nonintervention, self-determination, and other fundamental concepts of peaceful coexistence can mean in the twenty-first century. Because thirty or so banks control almost all of international finance and the United States controls the dollar and the hegemonic currency of international trade, the difference between territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction has disappeared in global trade and finance, as well. Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman provide a readable and popular introduction; Pierre-Hugues Verdier explains in detail the mechanisms of international financial law; and Cornelia Woll tries to integrate these events into legal theory and doctrine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".