Displacing Religion, Disarming Law: Situating Quaker Spirituality in the “Trident Three” Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors focus on the case of the “Trident Three”, who boarded a Trident submarine control station on barge on a Scottish loch and, using their bare hands and small hammers, disabled much of the computer equipment in the station, temporarily disarming one third of Britain’s nuclear weapons system. Drawing primarily on a discourse analysis of the case, the authors identify a profound disjuncture between the ways in which the law and religious discourse framed the actions of the Trident Three. They explore the ways in which religious claims are reshaped by legal discourse as isolated actions rather than as actions set in a broader moral context with transcendental implications. Their project is to conduct a socio-legal analysis of competing discourses, paying particular attention to the ways in which power relations are worked out. They also acknowledge the contribution of social movements literature to an understanding of the ways in which groups deploy notions of “the good society” or “the public good” in order to ground their justification of choice of action.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".