‘ISLANDS OF EMPOWERMENT’: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW AND THE QUESTION OF RACIAL EMANCIPATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her evocative masterpiece, The Alchemy of Race and Rights, published in 1991, Patricia Williams captured a moment in American legal thought that marked a turning point in expressions about race and power, and the implications for social equality. It contained lessons extending beyond America’s unique race history, to the general social and political dynamics in liberal democracy that create conditions of privilege and exclusion. She invited us to think about the place of law in the social and institutional practices that sustain status quo hierarchies, despite proclaimed civil rights commitments to justice. She also inspired hope that the role of the lawyer could be one of mutinous agitator—struggling from the inside, using the tools and skills of practice to support the causes of identifiable communities and social movements.\n\n \n\nDans son chef-d’œuvre évocateur, The Alchemy of Race and Rights, publié en 1991, Patricia Williams a saisi un moment dans la pensée juridique américaine qui a marqué un tournant au niveau des expressions concernant la race et le pouvoir, ainsi que les répercussions pour l’égalité sociale. L’ouvrage contenait des leçons qui allaient au-delà de l’histoire raciale unique des États-Unis et qui abordaient la dynamique sociale et politique générale de la démocratie libérale qui crée des conditions de privilège et d’exclusion. L’auteure nous a invités à examiner la place du droit dans les pratiques sociales et institutionnelles qui maintiennent les hiérarchies du statu quo, malgré les engagements en matière de droits civils qui ont été pris en faveur de la justice. Elle a aussi laissé espérer que l’avocat pourrait jouer un rôle d’agitateur rebelle — luttant de l’intérieur, en utilisant les outils et compétences pratiques pour soutenir les causes des collectivités et des mouvements sociaux identifiables.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".