Uma análise crítica de diferentes interpretações do projeto de hart em “o conceito de direito”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present thesis compares different interpretations of Hart’s project in “The Concept of Law”, examining the evidence in favor of each and trying to establish to what extent they are charitable. The first interpretation considered is that according to which the author’s objective was that of doing modest conceptual analysis, trying to simply determine in what terms most people would describe hypothetical situations. After a general analysis of the book demonstrates that it is compatible with this interpretation, it is argued that this vision of the hartian project would impose limits to the criticisms that he could level against other authors. The second interpretation says that Hart was stipulatively defining a certain sense for the term “law” due to the positive political consequences that would follow from the use of the term in this sense; this interpretation equally has evidence in its favor, but is limited with regard to the criticisms to other authors that it would allow. Many activities that have been called “real definition” are also taken into consideration, but none seems to be a valid interpretation os the work’s project. Finally, the hypothesis that Hart was doing conceptual analysis in the manner typical of the “ordinary language philosophy” movement is considered and, though there is much evidence in favor of this interpretation, it is not defended due to criticisms that may be directed to the presuppositions of the movement.
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 | 0.027 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".