Beyond criminocentric dogmatism: Mapping institutional forms of punishment in contemporary societies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to question the role criminal justice and criminal law play in structuring the set of dominant conditioning questions in criminology. Based on socio-legal approaches and past fieldwork in immigration control, I argue that the punitive use of non-criminal-based normative systems (such as immigration law) is not a new trend and that, therefore, we are not assisting a ‘criminal contamination’ of other justice systems, but the re-emergence and consolidation of different punitive logics. In that sense, I suggest that criminal justice acts as an epistemological obstacle, being a major barrier to perceive such nuances. Instead, I propose a wider conception of the penal field which operates as a mobile (kinetic sculpture) and includes the criminal law realm, but also other institutional normative systems that configure ‘less’ prominent locations of punishment, such as: regulatory criminal law, civil courts, immigration law, military law, parole boards and other administrative legal systems that play an increasing role in social reaction. I ultimately argue that criminologists should also focus on such administrative-based justice systems in order to better address and resist punitiveness.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it