Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the meaning of the term ‘civil order’ by asking what it means to claim that criminal law is only ‘intelligible’ from the perspective of civil order. In Part II, I examine different possible meanings of the term intelligibility. In Part III, I go on to look at ways of understanding the term ‘civil order,’ arguing that it must be seen primarily as a historically situated question – that is to say, both the question of what amounts to order, and conceptions of civility, depend on particular historical contexts. I illustrate this point by looking at how order was conceived of as a specific kind of problem in modernity and how this has shaped the understandings of the scope and the function of the criminal law. In Part IV, I look at a neglected dimension of this modern understanding of civil order by looking at the way that the relation between the market and the criminal law – that is to say, between a sphere of social life ordered by contract or civil law and those spheres ordered by criminal law – has been conceived of in modernity. I conclude that this distinction between market and civil society underpins the thinking about the proper scope of the criminal law but that, if we are properly to understand the role of criminal law in securing civil order, it is necessary to reflect not only on the civility of civil order but also on how we understand the scope of civil order in modern society.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".