Homophobic violence in London: challenging assumptions about strangers, dangers and safety in the city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book synopsis: Law and the City offers a lateral, critical and often unexpected description of some of the most important cities in the world, including Moscow, Istanbul, Berlin, Singapore, Athens, Mexico City, Toronto, Sydney, Johannesburg: each one from a distinctive legal perspective. \n \nAn invaluable 'guide' to adopting a different approach to the city and its history, culture and everyday experience, Law and the City is not simply an exploration of the relationship between these two spheres. \n \nIt details: \n \na flourishing of law’s spatiality and urban legal locality \nan unfolding of both the juridical urban body and the city’s legal dreams, of both the ‘urban law’ and the ‘juridical polis’. \nEnlightening and at the same time problematizing the reader, this volume is an innovative collection of truly global dimensions that will prove compelling reading both for specialists and for critical travellers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".