MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315295893 · doi:10.1177/1743872109355562

Remarks on Sacrifice and Punishment

2010· article· en· W2315295893 on OpenAlex
Melissa Ptacek

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw Culture and the Humanities · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicViolence, Religion, and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunitive damagesSacrificeScapegoatPunishment (psychology)CriminologyKey (lock)Law and economicsSociologyPsychologyLawSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyComputer scienceComputer securityTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this commentary, I explore affirmative responses to the question of whether the notion of sacrifice illuminates the nature of punitive acts such as executions and lynchings. In the end, however, I maintain that the notion of sacrifice is incompatible with such efforts and may serve more to obscure than to illuminate. Not only are key aspects of sacrifice overlooked in such analyses, but attention is diverted from the specific punitive violence of law. Finally, I propose that, when separated from its sacrificial framework, René Girard’s figure of the scapegoat may be helpful to understanding this punitive violence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it