Ambivalence towards law: Business Improvement Associations, public disorder and legal consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the ways the business community – here operationalised through Business Improvement Associations (BIAs) – thinks about and makes sense of the Law and the legal system, its legal consciousness, in other words. I suggest that the way BIAs think about and make sense of the Law is best described as ambivalent, ranging from reverence to disenchantment: on the one hand, the Law is (like) God, but on the other, the Law is also a source of angst, frustration, hopelessness and powerlessness. Drawing on the analytical framework of legal consciousness, I suggest, provides a good platform from which to explore whether the ‘haves’ come out ahead, and what coming out ahead might mean and look like to them. Equally, the ambivalence towards law shows that the ways the ‘haves’ make sense of the Law might not always be that antithetical to the way the ‘have-nots’ make sense of the Law.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".