Committing Sociology (of Law): The Autonomy of Law in Canada's 'War on Terror'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical sociologists often argue that post-2001 counterterrorism policies, which depend on extraordinary powers and various executive provisions, are the ultimate example of sovereign power's victory over the rule of law.Such opprobrium often ignores the empirical study of legal communications in lieu of policy documents and political discourses.As such, this thesis advocates for an analysis of legal communications in the context of Canada's 'war on terror'.The aim is to provide an alternative sociology of anti-terrorism law by engaging with a theoretical perspective often overlooked in sociology: Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory.Through an analysis of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, this thesis examines the impact of anti-terror legislation on the autonomy of law.It is argued that while the system of law is always 'endangered' by threats from the outside, law's creative maintenance of anti-terror legislation can be read as an example of the reinforcement of law's autonomy.graduate career at Carleton University.His guidance over the past two years has been invaluable on both an academic and personal level, for which I am extremely grateful.In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Aaron Doyle for his ceaseless motivation and enduring support throughout the completion of this thesis.Without his guidance and wisdom, this project would not have been possible.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".