Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recalling the theme of the present Research Series Law and Prejudice, this closing article harnesses the conceptual framework proposed by Everett Zimmermann in his semantic analysis of “Pride and Prejudice” to examine the interplay between law, pride, and prejudice. In Zimmermann, “pride” and “prejudice” are both opposite and interconnected qualities, like communicating vessels characterized by the same egoistic “self” as their core. Transposing this analysis into the legal domain, the article explores how the law, akin to “pride,” can reproduce the latter’s characteristics of detachment and perceived superiority, ultimately facilitating attempts at codifying “prejudice.” In this dynamic, the law—through its normative power and façade of objectivity—can become an instrument of marginalization, segregation, and discrimination. This article contends that the law’s supposed objectivity and normative authority transform it into a tool of superiority, not unlike pride in Zimmermann. By examining this dynamic, the article reveals how the law has been used numerous times to justify and normalize prejudice, creating the paradigm of “law as prejudice,” beyond “law as pride.” Through the lens of “othering,” the article illustrates how the law segregates by codifying the differences between “the Self” and “the Other,” sometimes under the guise of protection or benevolence, thereby justifying exclusion and discrimination. The analysis is anchored in the case study of the Canadian settler policies of assimilation of Indigenous Peoples, which show the destructive normative power of the “law as prejudice” paradigm. The article offers insights into the complex relationship between law, pride, and prejudice, and the pivotal role of the egoistic Self as “lawmaker of othering.”
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".