Constitutions as "Living Trees"? Comparative Constitutional Law and Interpretive Metaphors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debate over the appropriate role of foreign and international law in adjudication of public law claims is not unique to the United States.'Some of the opposition in the United States is driven by resistance to the Supreme Court's decision on the merits of the issues in recent "hot button" constitutional cases.But the fierceness of positions being taken in the United States, the xenophobic hostility unveiled in some discussions of foreign law, and the emergence of legislative efforts to control the interpretive sources the Court looks at, suggest that there is something more than ordinary constitutional disagreement at stake. 2 At least three different sets of concerns are layered on each other in this debate about foreign and international law (which I refer to jointly as "transnational legal sources").One question entailed in current discussions of foreign law is about what the United States and U.S. law stand for in a world perceived as hostile and threatening.External threats to the security of a nation that had become
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".