ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2024
A network model of legal relations.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CompLex: Legal systems through the lens of complexity science.Europhysics letters · 2025Article
- A complexity science approach to law and governance.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2024Article
- A network model of legal relations.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From at least the early twentieth century, legal scholars have recognized that rights and other legal relations inhere between individual legal actors, forming a vast and complex social network. Yet, no legal scholar has used the mathematical machinery of network theory to formalize these relationships. Here, we propose the first such approach by modelling a rudimentary, static set of real property relations using network theory. Then, we apply our toy model to measure the level of modularity-essentially, the community structure-among aggregations of these real property relations and associated actors. In so doing, we show that even for a very basic set of relations and actors, law may employ modular structures to manage complexity. Property, torts, contracts, intellectual property, and other areas of the law arguably reduce information costs in similar, quantifiable ways by chopping up the world of interactions between parties into manageable modules that are semi-autonomous. We also posit that our network science approach to jurisprudential issues can be adapted to quantify many other important aspects of legal systems. This article is part of the theme issue 'A complexity science approach to law and governance'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.