Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giorgio Agamben describes the origins of sovereign power, that power which constitutes the state of exception, as a force that gains its strength in the `unlocalizable' space between fact and law. Terming this space the `zone of indistinction', Agamben illustrates the particular manner in which the state employs law through exception, helping to reveal the paradoxical and omnipotent qualities of sovereign power. While the implications of his analysis hold that this form of power should be confronted and challenged, Agamben does not arrive at how this may be pursued. By reading Agamben's writings alongside selected anti-colonialist texts by Frantz Fanon and Aimé Césaire, it is possible to gain insights regarding both the dangers inherent to this type of sovereign power, and how it can be challenged. It is argued that the type of state that governs by means of exception creates the conditions that lead to its own undoing. Groups whose consent to the state's juridical order was historically tenuous, if not altogether absent, lay claim to a distinct position that is always already external to state sovereignty and law. Challenges from this position gain force by appealing to an extra-state sovereignty that represents universalized justice rooted in lawlessness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".