Anomalies of territory: examining the relationship between territory, sovereignty, and statehood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2! !3! IV.Late-Stage Colonization and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………….72 -80 a. Corporations as Agents of Territorial Control ……………….72 b.Legal Status of Territory and Colonies ………………………74 c.Extraterritoriality ………………………………………….77d.Conclusion ………………………………………………….80 V. Conclusion ………………………………………………….81 -83 Chapter 4 -Territory, Sovereignty, Statehood and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship Post-World War I ………………….84 -103 I. Introduction ………………………………………………… 84 -86 II.Territory, War and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………………….86 -88 III.Bounding the Peace through the Lens of Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship …………………………..88 -92 IV.Mandate System and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………………….92 -98 a. Class A Mandates ………………………………………… 93 b.Class B Mandates ………………………………………… 96 c.Class C Mandates ………………………………………… 97 V. New Colonialisms and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………………… 99 -101 VI.Conclusion ………………………………………………… 101 -103 Chapter 5 -Territory, Sovereignty, Statehood and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship Post-World War II …………………..104 -122 I. !4! IV.Internationalized Ports and Airports and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………… 137 -144 V. Foreign Resident Zones and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………….145-147 VI.Conclusion ………………………………………………….147 -148 Chapter 7 -Anomalies of Politics and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………………………… 149 -175 I. Introduction ………………………………………………… 149 -150 II.Indigenous Communities and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………… 151 -162 a. Australia ………………………………………………… 151 b.New Zealand ………………………………………………… 154 c.Canada ………………………………………………… 156 d.United States ………………………………………………….160 III.Kaliningrad Oblast and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………………….162-164 IV.Areas of Disagreement and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………….164-168 a. Cap-and-Trade in the United States ………………………….165b.The Euro in Hoganas ………………………………………….167V. Leased Territories, Reintegration and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………….169-173 VI.Conclusion ………………………………………………….173 -175 Chapter 8 -Anomalies of Military and the Model of Legal Elasticity and the Imperium and Dominium Relationship ………………………………………………….176 -196 I.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".