Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extraordinary times beget extraordinary measures. Multiple national emergencies during the past quarter century have generated a pitched debate as to whether, and to what extent, a crisis justifies deviations from fundamental legal rules. That debate has often focused on constitutional law and has produced sharply divergent views. Some theorists advocate a “business-as-usual” approach, eschewing emergency deviations, but societies rarely hold that course. More pragmatic scholars would permit some emergency measures but also defend fundamental social structures that have great value even during emergencies. Emergencies, however, pose challenges not only to constitutional rules but to law generally, including the basic structures of law governing commerce. In ordinary times, most developed countries rely on markets rather than government edicts to control the exchange of goods and services. One great benefit of markets is that they distill vast quantities of information into easily understood signals—prices—that help individuals and firms decide what to buy and sell. Yet deeply held social norms against profiting from others’ hardships during emergencies frequently lead governments to impose price controls, antigouging laws, and other crisis pricing rules that supplant markets, destroy the informational value of market prices, and produce long queues, hoarding, and illicit side markets that can deepen rather than ameliorate the emergency. More pragmatic approaches are needed for crisis pricing, and one promising approach is “zero-profit pricing”—an approach that can accommodate social norms against profiting off a crisis and yet still preserve the extraordinarily important informational function of market pricing. Zero-profit pricing has antecedents in common law crisis doctrines such as the necessity defense and general average contribution; may be more equitable and more efficient than existing approaches to emergencies (including a business-as-usual approach); and, most importantly, can minimize rather than exacerbate the misery caused by a crisis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.380 | 0.115 |
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".