Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the author considers the meaning of a legal strategy of rupture, and the possibilities that such a strategy holds for anti-colonial and anti-capitalist political resistance. The strategy of rupture, developed by advocate Jacques Vergès, and theorised by Emilios Christodoulidis, provides the initial framework for thinking through how this mode of deploying law for political transformation could be developed into a general approach that is applicable not only in the criminal law context, but also, in other fields of law. Shifting from the strategies of advocates to the question of judgment, the author analyses a recent judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, and explores how legal judgments can affect political ruptures through re-defining concepts such as security with the interests of the most marginalised communities in mind. By re-defining concepts that are vital to protecting the rights of people to resist various forms of exploitation, and by re-investing rights with new meaning, the Indian Supreme Court in Sundar et al v State of Chattisgarh (July 5, 2011) charts a course that holds promise for the struggles of legal advocates elsewhere.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".