Changing Federal Constitutions: Lessons from International Comparison, edited by Arthur Benz and Felix Knupling.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This ambitious book investigates recent instances of constitutional change from a comparative perspective “in order to identify structures, processes and strategies which have proven to be indispensable for successful constitutional amendment” in federal and decentralized democracies (p. 9). The various chapters were first presented at a conference held in February 2011 and organized by the Institute for European Constitutional Science at the FernUniversität in Hagen, the Institute for Political Science at the Technische Universität in Darmstadt, and the Forum of Federations and the German Bundesrat. The case studies on Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, and France as well as the comparative chapters offer readers extensive material on the processes of constitutional change in the federal and decentralizing systems of Europe and North America. The disconnect between the book’s subtitle and its somewhat limited empirical focus on Western Europe and Canada may initially disappoint some keen to read about constitutional changes in the Americas, Eurasia, and Africa. Nonetheless, this should not detract from the book’s rich empirical analyses of constitutional reform processes and theoretically informative comparative 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".