Judicialization or Renunciation? Judges in Today’s Landscape of Anti-Terrorism Laws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judges in constitutional democracies face common dilemmas navigating today’s landscape of anti-terrorism laws. Whether it is with respect to the oversight of investigative detentions or approval of control orders, security certifi cates, and other offi cial powers calculated to investigate and prevent terrorism and related activities, the judicial role has expanded into fi elds where the appropriate balancing of security concerns with individual liberties is exceedingly complex. The need for such balancing is, of course, one of the central justifications for judicial involvement: the judiciary is relied upon to bring characteristicindependence and integrity to the review of official powers, ensuring compliance betweenthe latter and the higher law of the Constitution. There is nevertheless an unsettling implication that sometimes attends judicial service in these fields — namely, it is not always clear whether the judicial role is truly one of constitutional enforcement and oversight, or one that allows administrative actors to borrow the integrity of the courts in furtherance of constitutionally-suspect ends.
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 | 0.053 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| 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".