Violence, Imagination, and Resistance: Socio-legal Interrogations of Power
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 book is the result of overlapping collective, collaborative, and interdisciplinary journeys.It is primarily the work of three young scholars who set out to write about doing socio-legal research on violence and resistance in Canada.In presenting this work, the editors and authors also enjoin us to question the very terms that hold the project together: socio-legal research, violence, and Canada.Socio-legal research has become increasingly visible as a distinct field of study defined by core questions, critical sensibilities, and theoretical commitments shared across a range of institutional and disciplinary affiliations.Earlier generations of socio-legal scholars might have been the only researchers in their home department or faculty-whether law, sociology, political science, or communications-to pursue interdisciplinary law and society scholarship.This relative isolation throughout the years heightened the importance of scholarly associations, conferences, and journals dedicated to socio-legal scholarship in order to think and write across disciplinary divides.Later generations of socio-legal scholars built collaborative research centres as well as specialized departments and programs for undergraduate and graduate studies.The editors, as well as many of the contributors to this book, have studied and taught at some of these specialized socio-legal research hubs, such as York University's graduate program in socio-legal studies and Carleton University's graduate program in legal studies.These relatively recent institutional foundations provide new platforms for asking about and narrating the history of socio-legal studies: how do we talk about the histories and theories on which we build our work?The focus is no longer on communicating across disciplinary divides but on critically examining the theoretical foundations inherited from earlier generations.We want to thank the many friends, colleagues, and mentors who contributed to this work on its long road to publication, including Carmela Murdocca, Stacy Douglas, Ummni Khan, Amanda Glasbeek, and Matt McManus.Thank you to the faculty members of York University's department of socio-legal studies for
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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