Bibliographic record
Abstract
- Legal theorists often conceive of the law as a closed system of reasoning, and as the central mechanism through which the uses of power are conferred and circumscribed. However, social theory challenges this conception of law by telling us that a great deal of power is non-juridical in nature, operating through discursive practices that define and normalize conduct. This raises doubts as to whether juridical power can be used to achieve social transformation. Risk theory uncovers discursive practices that operate as non-juridical sites of power, by showing how risk analyses normalize contingent values through the use of value-neutral terms of statistical probabilities. For example, feminist criminologists, drawing on risk theory, have shown us how risk discourses can be used to reinforce traditional norms of femininity, particularly by responsibilizing women for minimizing the risk of sexual assault. Using an example from the Canadian law of sexual assault, this paper considers whether the law inevitably reproduces the very discourses of femininity that many law reformers are trying to disrupt, or whether it might act as a site wherein these discourses may be challenged.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".