MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409537311 · doi:10.1111/raju.12405

Issue Information

2025· paratext· en· W4409537311 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRatio Juris · 2025
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversität MannheimUniversity of TorontoUniversità di BolognaVictoria UniversityWashington University in St. LouisUniversity of New South WalesVictoria University of WellingtonYale UniversityUniversity of OxfordHarvard UniversityUniversity of MiamiUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsPhilosophyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexy's theory of constitutional rights, challenging its account of the interaction between rules and principles in legal reasoning. Theory of Criminal LawTHOM BROOKS takes a critical lens to Andreas von Hirsch's penal theory, with a focus on its justifi cation of punishment and how it ought to be distributed. Nudges and LegalityREBECCA ZEILSTRA argues that governmental nudges are in tension with Fuller's criteria of formal legality-such as generality and promulgation-and shows how this tension might be resolved.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.134

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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