Lotta al terrorismo: da Bush a Obama, passando per la Corte Suprema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article contextualizes the United States (US) counter-terrorism policies from 2001 to the present in light of the peculiar US constitutional system of separation and balance of powers. It argues that the unprecedented claim of power made by the Bush Administration, unchecked by Congress, produced a reaction by the Supreme Court, exemplified by its increasingly confident decisions in the Guantanamo cases (Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan and Boumediene). It then claims that the election of President Obama, and the consequential abandonment of the theory of the unitary executive, represents a turning point in the antiterrorism policies of the executive branch and explains in this light the shift by the Supreme Court toward a position of judicial deference (as emerging notably in the recent Holder ruling). Finally the article offers a synthesis of the above-mentioned developments, emphasizing how the institutional dynamics that have taken place among the three branches of government - the President, Congress and the Supreme Court - have been largely shaped by the principle of checks and balances imbuing the 1787 US Constitution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".