The Lawfulness-Lawlessness Continuum: Interpersonal Dynamics in Conflict Resolution Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ways in which citizens behave, interact, and plan for the future have cumulative significance for the nature and future of society. This project proposes an analytical device (the lawfulness and lawlessness continuum) to describe the types of behaviours and decision-making that individuals use when participating in adjudication, mediation, and other conflict resolution processes. Lawfulness is a dynamic that is cyclical, orderly, and restrained. I suggest that it can be used to analyze the types of interactions between citizens that are associated with law and adjudication. Lawlessness is a dynamic that is emergent, adaptive, and responsive; it may manifest more often in moments between individuals who are using mediation to resolve their conflicts. Interactions between citizens are likely to involve a combination of lawfulness and lawlessness, along the continuum that lies between them. This analytical model offers a lens through which these nuances of citizen interactions can be analyzed. I would like to thank my supervisor, Neil Sargent, for his enthusiasm and support for this project; his unique ability to help an idea to grow, deepen, and flourish has been invaluable to me. Thank you also to Sheryl Hamilton, my second reader, whose openmindedness, honesty, and perspective helped to bring the project to the next level. The faculty and staff of the Law and Legal Studies Department at Carleton have been very supportive throughout this process
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".