MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2022301090 · doi:10.1353/utq.2005.0053

Law's Dream of a Common Knowledge (review)

2004· article· en· W2022301090 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jack M. Balkin

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHarmLawDreamPower (physics)Order (exchange)Need to knowPopulationSociologyPolitical sciencePsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge Jack M. Balkin (bio) Mariana Valverde. Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge Princeton University Press. xii, 248. US $35.00 How do members of a vice squad know that lewd conduct has occurred? How did Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr know that President Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky? How do US military officials applying the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy know that a soldier is homosexual? How do zoning commissions know that the sale of pornographic books and magazines causes harm? How do bartenders know that their patrons are inebriated? Each of these is a question about knowledge, and in each case knowing something and the way that one knows it have legal consequences and structure social relations. Mariana Valverde's Law's Dream of a Common Knowledge studies how legal actors know things like drunkenness or lewdness, and the effects of power that come from obtaining and applying this knowledge. Valverde's particular interest is in what is generally called vice regulation; she examines how governments exercise their police powers to maintain cleanliness and social order and prevent and deter uncleanliness and disorder in the general population. She discovers that there is no single form of knowledge employed in these cases. Instead, there is a wide range of different techniques that legal officials employ to know whether social order has been disrupted. Much of their knowledge lies somewhere between quotidian observation and expert opinion, or mixes the two together in unexpected ways. There has been much recent focus on how scientific and expert knowledges have invaded and transformed the practice of law. Valverde takes a contrarian position, arguing that a large part of legal regulation still eschews scientific expertise in favour of a melange of so-called 'common sense,' social stereotype, and what she calls the 'forensic gaze'- searching for clues or signifiers of social disorder in the style of Sherlock Holmes. Valverde is fascinated with how states use their police powers to shape and control populations, and how they do so through forms of knowledge. She points out that legal officials often regulate populations through the legal fiction of 'common knowledge.' Common knowledge is what all citizens are expected to know about the world - for example, whether a particular customer is drunk - and fail to know at their peril. This version [End Page 322] of common, Valverde argues, is imperative: it directs populations to know things and makes them responsible for this knowledge whether they possess it or not. In this way, the state 'externalizes the ... duty to know and to manage the risks of urban disorder by delegating it to nontechnical, nonexpert personnel.' Valverde also argues that regulation of social order is slowly moving from a focus on particular deviant acts (like sodomy and public lewdness) or deviant identities (like homosexuality or alcoholism) to concepts like 'lifestyle,' 'habit,' and 'community.' Instead of regulating drunkards, for example, one regulates elements of the presumed habits or lifestyle of people who the state believes drink too much and cause social disorder by, for example, regulating the hours that pubs can remain open. Instead of throwing soldiers out of the military if they commit sodomy, the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy excludes them if they have the 'propensity' to commit homosexual acts. Valverde's book is a contribution to the sociology of legal knowledge. But it offers no general theory. She contends that the ways that legal officials know things are multiple and hybrid. Therefore her book is a series of short essays on different problems of vice regulation and social control, and the different forms of knowledge employed in each case. Nevertheless, the book is larger than the sum of its parts. Within its pages are the beginnings of a more general technique for studying how legal knowledge works and the work that it does. Vice is a particularly good place to begin this study; but the examples in this book suggest that Valverde's methods can be extended with profit to many other areas of legal regulation as well. Jack M. Balkin Jack M. Balkin, Faculty of Law, Yale University Copyright © 2005 University of...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,059

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlyMême sujetLegal Education and Practice InnovationsTravaux en français237 207