Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Popular Government (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1897), 88. 2. See Aidan O'Neill "We Need to Talk About the Referendum," The Guardian 8 Nov. 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/08/uk-supreme-court-scottish-independence (accessed 6 Feb. 2012). 3. Alex Salmond, on, "The Andrew Marr Show," BBC 1, 29 Feb. 2012. 4. Portugal v. Australia, International Court of Justice, 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports, 90-106. 5. Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice, 16 October 1975, ICJ Report 12-68, 55. 6. Alina Kaczorowska, Public International Law (London,UK: Routledge, 2008), 83). 7. See Antonio Cassese (2005) International Law (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005), 74. 8. S.30 Scotland Act, 1998. 9. AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents) (Scotland), UKSC 46 [2011], 153. 10. Donald Dewar in House of Commons Debate, 12 May 1998, Column 257. 11. Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 21. 12. See Matt Qvortrup, A Comparative Study of Referendums (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2005), chap. 2. 13. Michael Gallagher, "Conclusion," in Michael Gallagher and Pier Vincenzo Uleri, eds., The Referendum Experience in Europe (Houndsmill: Macmillan, 1996), 246. 14. Roger Mac Ginty, "Constitutional Referendums and Ethnonational Conflict: The Case of Northern Ireland," Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 9(2): 3 (2003). 15. Sarah Wamburgh, Plebiscites since the War (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1933), 98. 16. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 231.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".