Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article sketches the beginnings of a theory of what the courts should do in the political constitution. As such, it differs from most of the literature on political constitutionalism (which tends to say more about what courts should not do) and most of the literature about what courts should do in constitutional law (which tends to be framed in a legal constitutionalist perspective). First, arguments are presented about how a political constitutionalist might distinguish between rights which are best left to political institutions and those which better lend themselves to judicial enforcement. Second, the argument is made that in constitutional litigation the courts should focus as much (if not more) on powers and evidence as on rights. The article closes with brief consideration of the legislature's role in the political constitution and of the courts' role in supporting the legislature. Throughout, the article takes the British constitution as its principal case study, but the implications of the argument presented here extend beyond Britain alone.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".