MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Criminal Process in the Dual Penal State

2019· reference-entry· en· W2945617747 on OpenAlex
Markus D. Dubber

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

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Political scienceLawCriminal lawIdeal (ethics)Context (archaeology)PoliticsPower (physics)Dual (grammatical number)SociologyLaw and economicsComputer sciencePhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter uses comparative-historical analysis to discuss criminal process in the context of penal power in the modern liberal state as penal law and penal police—the dual penal state. Focusing on Germany and the United States, it considers two ways of thinking about criminal process, from parallel perspectives that correspond to two modes of state governance: law and police. The first is characteristic of the law state (Rechtsstaat) and the second, of the police state (Polizeistaat). The emphasis is on the criminal process that is consistent with the pursuit of the ideal of liberal law to which states that regard themselves—or wish to be regarded by others—as participants in the modern liberal legal-political project are committed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCriminal Law and PolicyFrench-language works237,207