Authoritarian Criminology and Racist Statecraft: Rationalizations for Racial Profiling, Carding and Legibilizing the Herd
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay is a discrete survey of administrative-authoritarian criminologists’ neutralizing techniques for justifying and aiding and abetting racial profiling in policing and, by inference, racialized ‘carding’. Principally focused on Canada and the US, material for this survey arises from the effort of administrative-authoritarian criminologists who claim to refute commissioned reports, case law and obiter dicta, government reports and scholarly research affirming racial profiling in particular and racial discrimination in the criminal legal system generally. Rooted in counter-colonial, anti-criminology and abolitionist epistemology my method of exposition is to turn the claims administrative-authoritarian criminologists hold to be true back onto criminology itself to see what account it provides for itself. Following the path worn by Hannah Arendt, I set out to demonstrate that in taking the effects of racial profiling and the legibilizing of ‘carding’ as objectively authoritarian-criminologists, administrative-authoritarian are irresponsible in the exercise of judgment to true ideas.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it