Jurisdiction and Scale: Legal `Technicalities' as Resources for Theory
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
Since the 1980s, critical studies of law and space have fruitfully explored the insight that law's mechanisms can be understood in part as mapping exercises. Existing work on law's scales (especially that using a post-colonial studies frame) has delved into the qualitative as well as the quantitative dimensions of scale, thus exposing some key epistemological issues in law. This article moves the discussion forward by demonstrating that theoretical work on `scale' — outside and inside legal studies — could benefit from studying specifically legal mechanisms such as `jurisdiction'. Recent work has shown that the various modes and rationalities of governance that coexist in every political-legal `interlegality' are not necessarily tethered to any particular scale; thus, exploring jurisdiction's effects takes us beyond scale. As an example, the knowledge moves that constitute what in the USA is called `the police power of the state' are briefly discussed. The fact that the gaze of police science/police regulation is not simply geographically local, but is rather specifically urban, shows the importance of understanding the complex governing manoeuvres enabled by the legal game of jurisdiction — especially if work on `scale' and jurisdiction is then supplemented by a consideration of the plural temporalities of governance, since temporality tends to become invisible both in analyses that privilege space and in the somewhat static diagrams of governance that make up the game of jurisdiction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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