Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There has been a growing interest in the disciplinary ‘autonomy’ of labour law. The chapters in this book examine the interface between criminal law and theory and the regulation of labour markets, given the importance of this interface in the twenty-first century. The four chapters in the first section of the book are concerned broadly with the normative questions concerning the legitimacy of criminalisation in the regulation of social activity. It is a fundamental feature of liberal theories of criminalisation that the legitimate use of the criminal sanction requires special justification. The criminal law is coercive, punitive, and stigmatic. Each chapter examines the normative issue of criminalisation from a different perspective. The second section examines the distinctiveness of the criminal law as a form of regulation, especially compared with civil enforcement. The third section is concerned with criminal law, vulnerability, and precarious work relations. Recent scholarship in labour law has been intensively concerned with the concepts of vulnerability and precariousness in labour market relations. There is now a significant literature on these concepts from legal, economic, and social-scientific perspectives. The chapters in this section provide a novel theoretical perspective on those concepts by examining the distinctive role of the criminal law in respect of vulnerability and precarious work relations. The fourth section is concerned with contexts of criminalisation. The chapters in this section explore the different labour market contexts in which criminalisation has occurred. The fifth section is concerned with criminalisation and enforcement, and it examines the variety of ways in which the criminal law is being used as an enforcement tool, either as an auxiliary support to civil enforcement or as a substitute for civil enforcement. Finally, the last section provides two comparative chapters by leading scholars in the US and Canada. These chapters provide a comparative perspective on the role of penal policy in labour law.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".