Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past thirty years, sub-State national minorities in a number of developed liberal democracies have both reasserted their cultural distinctiveness and demanded recognition of it in legal and political terms. This phenomenon has been the subject of considerable study by sociologists, political scientists, and political theorists. This book differs by offering a study of the consequences of these rights claims for legal systems. It examines the role played by law, especially constitutional law, in the negotiation of the complex relationships and competing rights claims involving the State, national minorities, and other groups and individuals within the State. This book addresses the constitutional issues, both in theory and in practice, that accompany the existence of national diversity in pluralist democracies. The book contends that the democratic plurinational state, characterized by the presence of more than one national group within the State, is a discrete category of multi-level polity which defies the standard classifications of liberal constitutionalism. Building upon this theoretical basis, this book then focuses upon recent developments towards the institutional accommodation of Catalonia, Quebec, and Scotland. The book examines the legal issues which arise from the challenges posed by national minorities within multinational democracies, to the constitutional and institutional structures of particular States, and also to some of the fundamental precepts of democratic constitutional theory and practice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".