MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998006502 · doi:10.1353/tlj.0.0016

The Puzzle of Martial Law

2009· article· en· W1998006502 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawMartial lawProclamationComparative lawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Martial law is thought to be not a complete absence of law, nor a special kind of lawa scheme of legal regulation -but, rather, an absence of law prescribed by law under the concept of necessity -a legal black hole, but one created, perhaps even in some sense bounded, by law.A.V. Dicey claimed that martial law in this sense is 'unknown to the law of England,' which is 'unmistakable proof of the permanent supremacy of the law under our constitution.'This article explores Dicey's claim against the backdrop of the legal events that followed Governor Edward John Eyre's proclamation of martial law in reaction to the Jamaica uprising of 1865 and his ruthless suppression of the uprising.It might seem that these events, as well as later experience, show that Dicey was na vely wrong.But the article argues that a proper understanding of the jurisprudential issues and of that experience support his view.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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