Conference: The Legitimate Ambit of Criminalization (April 2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Nathanson Centre and Robina Institute joint international conferenceFriday, 1 April – Sunday, 3 April, 2016Location: Room 1014, Ignat Kaneff Building Osgoode Hall Law School York University 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 Background and Conference Theme\nFrom 2008 to 2012, a number of leading criminal law theorists (Duff, Farmer, Marshall, Renzo, and Tadros) engaged in an ambitious project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom. The task they set for themselves was to try and answer the questions of what should be criminalized, according to what goals and principles, what forms this criminalization should take, and how it should be applied. The group organized a series of meetings and workshops on different aspects of this inquiry, involving a large number of criminal law scholars from across the globe. The project led to a number of notable publications, including four edited volumes: The Boundaries of Criminal Law (OUP 2010), The Structures of Criminal Law (OUP 2011), The Constitution of Criminal Law (OUP 2013), and Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law (OUP 2014).\nThe introduction to the last volume sets out key areas of research that the conveners of the Project felt they were unable to tackle satisfactorily, given the inherent complexity of the issues at stake and the time-bounded character of their work. The most salient ones are: 1. Processes of criminalization: who apart from legislatures has/should have the power/authority to determine what is substantively criminalized? What about prosecutors and police? How different is the process at the international level? 2. The need to ground a normative account of criminalization – whether it focuses on substantive or procedural conditions for legitimate criminalization – in a political theory (which is clearly connected to (1)), and to understand criminal law as part of the political structure of the state. Connected to this is the question whether similar or different theories should be applied at the domestic and international levels. 3. The attractions/drawbacks of looking for a grand unitary theory of criminalization based on some single principle or value (harm; Rechtsgut; dignity; sovereignty; civil order…). 4. The relationship/division of labor between criminal law and other modes of regulation/other ways of responding to wrongs – including e.g. administrative regulatory regimes, tort law, restorative justice processes, etc. \nThe main aim of this conference is to continue to build on the work done in the context of the Criminalization Project to advance our understanding of these issues and other related ones.\nTo do so, we are bringing together a group of dynamic and original early and mid-career criminal law theorists, many of whom did not have a chance to participate in the Criminalization Project. It is our hope that their fresh perspectives will allow us to make further progress in unraveling the complexity of the issues outlined, and contribute to unveiling new vistas and questions from which to better understand the legitimate ambit of criminalization, domestically and/or internationally. Conference Program\nSee attached file.\nClick here for conference papers (Password protected)
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.018 |
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".