Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law, and therefore courts, can only make sense of collective agency in terms of constituted power that is power exercised in conformity with law. However, constituent power, insofar as it purports to create a new legal order, cannot act in conformity with the existing legal order. Constituent power can only be understood as lawful, therefore, if it is understood retroactively, from the perspective of the new legal order. This article considers the ICJ's treatment of the constituent power of ‘the People’ in the Kosovan declaration of independence, and the Supreme Court of Canada's consideration of the Quebecois legal right to secede. Considering the literature on constituent power and the ontology of ‘the People’, this article suggests that democracy and the rule of law offer a partial solution to the paradox of constituent power. It introduces John Searle's ontology of ‘institutional facts’, arguing that the nature of the constituent entity can be understood as a ‘status function’ created by a ‘Declaration’. It concludes by considering the limits to the justiciability of constituent power and the corollary necessity for recognition, or what Derrida calls a ‘last instance’.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".