Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the study of traditional law and governance across the various jurisdictions of the continent now moves into the mainstream , there is a chance to expand the focus to an earlier and now mostly forgotten episode of an ambitious, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to identify, recognise, and apply the various systems of traditional law practices across the entire African continent. Using historical records and official reports from the time-period, the paper seeks to distil and expose the various lessons that ten years of the pan-African Restatement of African Law Project ( RALP ) presents. The paper identifies four challenges of recognition and formalisation that the RALP sought to address (preference for integrated or separate legal systems; restatement or codification of traditional laws; how to reconcile different legal/bureaucratic traditions and specialisations; applicability outside the territories of the community in question). The paper concludes with challenges that were not addressed by RALP .
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 | 0.108 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".