Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two kinds of recurring events – police violence and political protests – highlight some of the tensions between criminal justice administration and the idea of civil peace. Maintaining civil order is both a duty of the state and a justifying basis for state power, including criminal law power. But civil order is understood to have a normative dimension. Peace is more than merely the absence of disorder; it is order on just terms, achieved by legitimate means. That sets the stage for the paradox of the state using its order-preserving power to breach the civil order, notably through unlawful uses of force by police. Public responses to state-triggered disorder lead to a second paradox: citizens sometimes use tactical breaches of the peace as a means to call the state to account for its acts of disorder; they use unrest to restore peace. This tactic is explicit in the collective demand ‘no justice no peace’ employed throughout English-speaking democracies, a demand that often calls for greater use of criminal sanctions to repair the civil order. Beyond these two examples, this article assesses the particular difficulties of sustaining a just civil peace in ethically pluralist societies, where the constitutive values on which the legitimacy of civil order depends can be especially hotly contested. Western democracies aspire to be ethically pluralist, but strains of illiberal populism, such as those apparent now in many of those democracies, make it even harder to reach a sustainable settlement on the terms for a practice and process of just civil peace.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".