MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131439455

The Dual Penal State: American Penality between Law and Police (Pt. 3)

2018· article· en· W3131439455 on OpenAlexaff
Markus D. Dubber

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawCriminal lawPolitical scienceLegitimacyScholarshipState (computer science)Comparative lawPublic lawDoctrineSociologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book is about the collective failure to address the fundamental challenge of legitimating the threat and use of penal violence in modern liberal states. The first part of the book investigated various ways in which criminal law doctrine and scholarship have managed not to meet this continuing struggle to legitimate state action that is so patently illegitimate on its face: the violent violation of the very autonomy of the very persons upon whose autonomy the legitimacy of the state is supposed to rest in a law state, or state under the rule of law. Part 1 focused primarily on German criminal law, and German criminal law science, with regular comparative glances from outside the German penal system. The second part explored an alternative approach to criminal law discourse — among scholars, practitioners, officials, and “lay” persons — that puts the legitimacy challenge of modern penal law front and center. Part 2 was about a way of thinking, and talking, about criminal law: critical analysis of criminal law in a dual penal state. It set out this approach, and illustrated it by applying it to a range of issues in state penality. The point was to frame questions, to lay out tools for answering them, rather than to provide the answers ready-made. The approach in part 2 was systemic; it focused on the shared ideal and history of states that constitute the modern liberal legal-political project. The third, and last, part, of the book will use dual penal state analysis to generate a comparative-historical analysis of American penality. With comparative glimpses at Germany and, to a lesser extent, England. it will distinguish between two responses to the shared challenge of legitimating state penal power in a modern liberal democratic state: (1) the failure to appreciate the legitimatory challenge of modern state penal power in particular (U.S.) and of modern state power in general (England) and (2) the failure to address the legitimatory challenge of modern state penal power as a continuous and comprehensive existential threat to the legitimacy of the state (Germany).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and PolicyFrench-language works237,207