Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book considers the increasing trend towards a 'culture of control' in democratic countries. The post-9/11 counter-terrorism laws in nations such as the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia provide a stark demonstration of this trend. These laws share a focus on the pre-emption of crime, restrictions on the right to liberty of non-suspects, limited public access to information, and increased community surveillance. The laws derogate, in many respects, from the ordinary principles of the criminal justice system and fundamental human rights while also harnessing public institutions in the broader project of prevention and control. Distinctively, the contributors to this volume focus on the impact of these laws outside of the counter-terrorism context. The book draws together a range of experts in both public and criminal law, from Australia and overseas, to examine the effect of counter-terrorism laws on public institutions within democracies more broadly. Issues considered include changes to the role and functions of the courts, the expansion of executive discretion, the seepage of extraordinary powers and pre-emptive measures into other areas of the criminal law, and the interaction and overlap between intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".