Comparative legal cultures : On traditions classified, their rapprochement & transfer, and the anarchy of hyper-rationalism with appendix on legal ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collection of papers relating Comparative Legal Cultures originally published between 1995 and 2008 on DISCIPLINARY ISSUES treating topics like ‘Law as Culture?’ [2002] / ‘Trends in Comparative Legal Studies’ [2002] / ‘Comparative Legal Cultures: Attempts at Conceptualisation’ [1997] / ‘Comparative Legal Cultures?’ [2001] / ‘Theatrum legale mundi On Legal Systems Classified’ [2005] / ‘Legal Traditions? In Search for Families and Cultures in Law’ [2004] / ‘Something New, Something Old in the European Identity of Law?’ [1995] as well as involving FIELD STUDIES on topics like ‘Meeting Points between the Traditions of English–American Common Law and Continental-French Civil Law: Developments and Experience of Postmodernity in Canada’ [2002] / ‘Man Elevating Himself? Dilemmas of Rationality in our Age’ [2000] / ‘Rule of Law? Mania of Law? On the Boundary between Rationality and Anarchy in America’ [2002] / ‘Transfers of Law: A Conceptual Analysis’ [2003] / ‘The Dangers for the Self of Being Self-centred: On Standards and Values’ [2002] with a paper in APPENDIX on ‘Theory of Law – Legal Ethnography, Or the Theoretical Fruits of the Inquiries into Folkways’ [2008]
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".