MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612230206 · doi:10.33137/cal.v4i1.28143

Making Modern Criminal Law Theory: Reflections on Farmer

2017· article· en· W2612230206 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Chiao

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Analysis of Law · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal lawPublic lawLawCivil law (Civil law)Interpretation (philosophy)Relation (database)Philosophy of lawPrivate lawComparative lawPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)Theory of criminal justiceSociologyCriminal justicePhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This brief review essay is devoted to a discussion of Lindsay Farmer’s recent book, Making the Modern Criminal Law. I focus on the following themes: a formal and material interpretation of criminal law in facilitating “civil order”; the relation between criminal law’s history and its justification; and the idea that the criminal law forms a sufficiently cohesive and distinctive body of law that it makes sense to ascribe moral principles to it that we would not be prepared to ascribe to public institutions, and public law, more generally.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Analysis of LawSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207