TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND CRIMINALIZATION
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
The nature of jurisdiction and its relation to the criminal law is either poorly understood or neglected altogether. Jurisdiction is often viewed either as a purely technical matter – a procedural hurdle to be crossed before a court can hear a particular case – or as something linked pragmatically to the limits of enforcement of the law. This is particularly true in relation to territorial jurisdiction, where the idea of territory is treated as though it were natural and self-evident, without acknowledgement of the way that it is shaped by particular legal and political institutions. The present article has two aims. First it identifies and analyses the principal features of the paradigm of territorial jurisdiction as this has developed in English law, looking in particular at the way the idea of ‘territory’ has shaped and been shaped by the development of the criminal law. It then goes on to explore the relationship between jurisdiction and criminalization by showing how the development of the paradigm of territorial jurisdiction was linked, not only to the emergence and form of certain laws, but more generally to the idea of a criminal law as a body of norms applied consistently and seamlessly within a given legal space.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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