Kan retsvidenskaben være empirisk?:Om aktualiteten af Alf Ross’ empiriske vending i retsfilosofien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Med udgangspunkt i Alf Ross’ retsrealistiske projekt beskæftiger denne artikel sig med, om retsvidenskaben er en disciplin i sin egen ret, eller om den i sidste ende er en del af samfundsvidenskaben særligt sociologien. Konkret undersøges dette skisma hos Ross gennem hans kritik af Theodor Geigers retssociologiske arbejder, hvor Ross imod Geiger argumenterer for, at retsvidenskaben uanset ambitionen om at blive empirisk stadig må være principielt forskellig fra retssociologien. I artiklen argumenteres der for, at denne påstand er uholdbar, og at den bl.a. hviler på en vilkårlig afgrænsning af sociologien, både hvad angår dens metode og dens genstand. Artiklens konklusioner har samtidig betydning for, hvilke udviklingslinjer man vælger at tegne fra Ross’ egen realistiske retslære i midten af forrige århundrede og frem imod vore dages iøjnefaldende empiriske vending i retsvidenskaben kendetegnet ved bevægelser som New Legal Realism, Empirical Legal Studies, Law and Economics og forestillingen om en naturalisering.
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 | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".