MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555190754 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511493683.014

The post-9/11 migration of Britain's Terrorism Act 2000

2007· book-chapter· en· W1555190754 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismGlobePolitical scienceLawPoliticsPolitical economySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 have resulted in the expansion of anti-terrorism laws throughout the globe. The international and domestic reaction to these attacks constitute a type of horrible natural experiment in the migration of constitutional and anti-constitutional ideas. In this chapter, I will attempt to provide insight into the complexity of the migration of constitutional ideas with respect to anti-terrorism laws by examining the influence of the definition of terrorism in Britain's Terrorism Act 2000 on the post-9/11 development of anti-terrorism laws in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the role that domestic law, politics, and history played in producing variations in the definition of terrorism in each country. As Kim Lane Scheppele argues in her contribution to this collection, international law, and in particular the UN Security Council Resolution 1373, helped shape the worldwide expansion of anti-terrorism laws after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the same time, as Professor Scheppele notes, Security Resolution 1373 made no attempt to define terrorism and a universal definition of terrorism has so far eluded the international community. A failure to define terrorism in international law allowed various local agendas to enter into the definition of terrorism. Although, as Professor Scheppele suggests, the local agenda sometimes helped produce more repressive laws, at other times, it restrained the new international mandate to combat terrorism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207