MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001802528 · doi:10.1177/1743872114524879

Biopolitics and the Enemy: On Law, Rights and Proper Subjects

2014· article· en· W2001802528 on OpenAlexaff
J. Hardes

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw Culture and the Humanities · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopowerAppealLawAdversarySociologyState (computer science)Political scienceLaw and economicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the operation of “enmity” in right to die legal appeals. The article asks: (1) why does the law rely on articulations of enmity to rationalize its decisions and (2) what might this tell us about how biopolitics operates in the contemporary neoliberal moment? Drawing on the insight of Roberto Esposito the article makes three key points. First, it notes that biopolitics operating in the contemporary neoliberal moment is increasingly focused on closures around individual human subjects, or what Esposito calls mechanisms of “immunization.” Second, it notes that discourses of enmity are perpetuated through legal right to die appeals that shore up these immunity mechanisms, which can partly explain why right to die claims fail on appeal. Finally, it considers more affirmative ways forward in both theory and practice relating to legal right to die appeals.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw Culture and the HumanitiesSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207