Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter introduces the global model of constitutional rights, a globally successful conception of rights with four characteristic features: first, rights inflation; second, an acknowledgment of horizontal effect; third, an acknowledgment of positive obligations and, increasingly, socio-economic rights; and fourth, the endorsement of the doctrines of balancing and proportionality. It contrasts this understanding of rights with the ‘dominant narrative of the philosophy of fundamental rights’, according to which rights protect only interests of a special importance, apply only vertically, impose only negative obligations, and hold a special normative force over competing considerations. It explains that the gap between the global model and the dominant narrative raises urgent questions regarding the conception of rights which underlies the global model and the legitimacy of judicial enforcement of this particular conception in light of the values of democracy and the separation of powers. The chapter then sets out the project of the book, namely to provide a general, reconstructive, and substantive moral theory of the global model. It clarifies the terms ‘global’ and ‘constitutional’, explains the exclusion of the U.S. practice from the scope of the book, provides an account of the reconstructive methodology, and ends with a summary of the subsequent chapters.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".