Politics as a legal category: a few considerations on the limits of public law adjudication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public law and political science have a lot in common, since for both disciplines politics is a defining phenomenon and an epistemic category of the highest relevance. What separates starkly the two fields of knowledge is the diametrically opposed position which they adopt towards this common point of reference. Whereas political scientists have more of an inclination to recognize and perhaps celebrate -rather than conceal- politics, public lawyers (save perhaps for the various "legal realist" schools), contrariwise, seek to the utmost to drive a wedge between politics and public law proper. Classical constitutionalist theory and practice coagulated around a number of coherent bright-line foundational distinctions. These distinctions rendered the separation between law and politics easier to both conceptualize and maintain in public law adjudication. The twentieth-century departure of modern state practices from the classical paradigm has created a number of tensions, which pose nowadays various problems and raise a number of important dilemmas regarding the limits and legitimacy of public law adjudication.
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 | 0.022 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".