Socio-legal Frameworks: An Anthropological Analysis of Sociocultural Influences on Proposed Arrangements for International Administration of the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: The legal infrastructures of nations are built on sociocultural attitudes regarding the function, purpose, appropriate sources, and means of conceptualizing law. The discipline of legal anthropology aims to study conceptions of law cross-culturally. This study aims to understand the systems of social attitudes toward law which serve in constructing the socio-legal frameworks on which legal traditions and the types of legal institutions they beget are based. This examination is made through a case study of the ongoing formation of intergovernmental administrative infrastructure in the Arctic, through the lenses of three of its most influential stakeholders. By analyzing the actions of the governments of Canada, the United States, and the Russian Federation in regards to ratification of multilateral administrative instruments, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, rationales surrounding the implementation of a bilateral treaty to ameliorate Arctic disputes, as well as other tactics used to resolve said disputes, this study hopes to understand how sociocultural attitudes drive the formation of legal institutions. Analysis of the sociocultural attitudes which inform domestic and intergovernmental legal institutions will be done through historical examination of the legal traditions that underpin the standing legal institutions of each of these three states. This examination has demonstrated that Canada and the United States, which are members of the common law legal tradition, that prioritizes use of established precedent in legal decision making, appear more reticent to ratify measures of international law in the Arctic, which do not have substantial precedent. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation, which is rooted in the civil law tradition, which primarily utilizes direct application of legislative enactments and legal scholarship as its means of determining legal action, has ratified and implemented measures on the solely principles of international law in the Arctic more readily.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".