MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523428605 · doi:10.20318/eunomia.2016.2146

La interpretación constructiva en el constitucionalismo commonwealth: ¿activismo o vandalismo judicial?

2014· article· es· W1523428605 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEUNOMÍA. Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal processes and jurisprudence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En este articulo se analiza el modelo de constitucionalismo que opera actualmente en Canada, Nueva Zelanda, Gran Bretana y Australia, y en especial el tipo de interpretacion juridica que permite a los jueces alterar el sentido literal de las disposiciones legales con objeto de hacerlas consistentes con los derechos protegidos. El articulo comienza con una breve descripcion de la estructura basica del modelo commonwealth como un esquema cooperativo de proteccion de derechos. A continuacion, se revisan varios ejemplos de interpretacion “constructiva” en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema canadiense y de la Camara de los Lores britanica, con objeto de subrayar los limites que los jueces se autoimponen en su labor interpretativa. Por ultimo, el autor trata justificar este tipo de interpretacion mediante una concepcion sustantiva de la legalidad, en la que se incluyen los valores constitucionales que los tribunales invocan para revisar la legislacion. Palabras clave: Revision judicial, constitucionalismo, interpretacion constructiva, soberania parlamentaria, derechos de los homosexuales y matrimonio del mismo sexo. Abstract: This paper examines the model of constitutionalism that operates today in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia, with particular focus on the duty of progressive interpretation that this model imposes on the judges. According to this kind of interpretation, legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the protected rights, even if that leads beyond the literal meaning of the legal norms. The paper starts with a brief description of the basic structure of the model as a cooperative scheme of rights protection. Later, it offers an analysis of some examples of the constructive interpretation in the case law of the Canadian Supreme Court and the British House of Lords, with the aim of highlighting the self-imposed limits of judicial activism. Finally, the author attempts to find a proper justification for this kind of interpretation through a substantive conception of legality, which includes the constitutional values that judges invoke to revise the legislation. Keywords: Judicial review, constitutionalism, progressive interpretation, parliamentary sovereignty, rights of homosexuals and same-sex marriage.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it