MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924068598

Constituent Assemblies and Democracy: A Critical Reading of the New Constitutionalism in the Andes

2013· article· en· W1924068598 on OpenAlex
Ana María Bejarano, Renata Segura

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueColombia Internacional · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Society in Latin America
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionDemocracyOpposition (politics)NegotiationConstitutionalismPoliticsPolitical scienceCitizen journalismPolitical economyCompetition (biology)Law and economicsLawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article throws into question the idea according to which democratic and participatory constitution making processes necessarily produce constitutions that lead to democratic deepening. While many new constitutions create wider avenues for political participation, not all of them open the door to the opposition, nor guarantee its exercise. By studying the constitution making processes in the Andean region since 1991, this article puts forth two different routes to constitution making that yield different results. On the one hand, a diverse and symmetric assembly where negotiation becomes the dominant strategy should yield a constitution favorable to democracy, deepening in its double dimension (inclusion and opposition). On the other hand, an assembly dominated by one majoritarian actor or coalition that can impose its own constitutional project, may yield positive outcomes in terms of inclusion, while having a negative impact on the dimensions of competition and contestation, both critical for democracy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.306 · 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