Vigilante Justice in Society and Popular Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This unique collection explores the complex issue of vigilantism, how it is represented in popular culture, and what is its impact on behavior and the implications for the rule of law. The book is a transnational investigation across a range of eleven different jurisdictions, including accounts of the Anglophone world (Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States), European experiences (Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, and Portugal), and South American jurisdictions (Argentina and Brazil). The essays, written by prominent international scholars in law, sociology, criminology, and media studies, present data, historical and recent examples of vigilantism; examine the national Laws and jurisprudence; and focus on the broad theme of vigilante justice in popular culture (literature, films, television). Vigilante Justice in Society and Popular Culture sheds light on this topic offering a detailed look beyond the Anglophone world. This collection will enrich the debate by adding the opportunity for comparison which has been largely lacking in scholarly debate. As such, it will appeal not only to scholars of law, sociology, criminology, and media studies, but also to all those who are engaged with these topics alike.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".