MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005924819 · doi:10.3138/utlj.2019-0061

The constitution of criminal law

2020· article· en· W3005924819 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lorenzo Zucca

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal lawPunishment (psychology)LawConstitutionPolitical scienceFlourishingCriminologyContext (archaeology)SociologyPsychologySocial psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I argue that modern criminal law was constituted to rationalize and humanize punishment. To do so, modern states need a constitutional framework that protects the rule of law and the separation of powers. In this context, criminal law protects individuals against arbitrary and cruel punishment by creating very strict conditions on the use of punishment and by limiting its abuse by authorities. Part II of the article tracks the evolution of crime and punishment and argues that criminal law only came to maturity when crime was distinguished from sin during the Enlightenment. Once crime had been freed from its theological shackles, it could be reconceptualized as one of the main instruments of the state to maintain the secular political order. Part III of the article sketches the main traits of a system of criminal law that aims to minimize crime and punishment; it also promotes peace as the harmony of mind – that is to say, a collective mental state in which individuals and groups can trust the state to create an environment in which interpersonal and institutional violence is reduced to the bare minimum and people can focus on their individual flourishing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.042
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207