Constitutional reengineering: Dialogue's migration from Canada to Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foreign sources affect the development of constitutional systems in a variety of ways. In this article, I examine the intentional modification, or reengineering, of foreign constitutional ideas. The study of constitutional reengineering offers insights into how and why actors use foreign constitutional ideas and informs analysis of convergence and divergence among constitutional systems. To highlight the process and implications of constitutional reengineering, I analyze dialogue’s migration from Canada to Australia. Canadians develop the idea of dialogue to differentiate its Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the United States Bill of Rights, suggesting that the Charter facilitates unique forms of institutional interaction, or dialogue, between courts and legislatures on the meaning of rights. Australians appropriate and reengineer the idea, expanding dialogue to include the executive and public and reorienting it to differentiate Australia’s statutory form of rights protection from the status quo ante, namely a system of legislative supremacy. This study of reengineering complicates existing comparative analyses of rights protection in the Commonwealth, which suggest these rights instruments establish a middle ground between the paradigms of judicial and legislative supremacy. First, debates about dialogue in Australia and Canada underscore the difficulty in what it means to establish a middle ground in the context of rights protection. Second, Australia’s reengineered idea of dialogue emphasizes the importance of examining not only which institution gets the final say, the typical means of conceptualizing the middle ground, but also the dynamics of the law making process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".