Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Global terrorism is thought to herald a paradigm shift within constitutional liberal democracies where liberty must give way to security creating a new normality. Such a situation differs from a classically conceived state of emergency because it does not precipitate a temporary suspension of the rule of law. In response, post-9/11, constitutional liberal democracies, like the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, therefore, contemplate the use of indefinite detention without trial (indefinite detention) as a counter-terrorism measure that should possess rule-of-law legitimacy. Indefinite detention raises problems for morality and the rule of law. It is morally troubling though it is far from clear that indefinite detention is inherently immoral and intolerable. From the perspective of the rule of law or legality, a question arises whether law can meaningfully regulate indefinite detention. If such control is impossible, then constitutional liberal democracies run the risk of creating rule by law not the rule of law. The rule of law contrasts with arbitrary power while, rule by law, on the other hand, involves the use of the legal form to cloak arbitrary power. In this chapter, I explore the lessons that constitutional liberal democracies can learn from Malaysia and Singapore where indefinite detention has been a long-standing feature of the legal landscape under internal security legislation. This power has been used as a tool of abuse and is now justified in the name of counter-terrorism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".