MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052118429 · doi:10.1093/publius/pjs034

Federal Supremacy and the Occupied Field: A Comparative Critique

2012· article· en· W2052118429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arun Sagar

Bibliographic record

VenuePublius The Journal of Federalism · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrinePolitical scienceField (mathematics)Interpretation (philosophy)Constitutional interpretationLawLaw and economicsSociologyConstitutional lawPhilosophyMathematicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article undertakes a comparative study of the concept of federal supremacy as it appears in the constitutional texts and judicial doctrine of the United States, Australia, India, Canada, and Germany. It discusses the complex judicial techniques and principles developed in each of these federations, and argues that the approaches based on “conflict” and “field,” respectively, should be distinguished as opposing paradigms of interpretation. The field approach is criticized as being incompatible with a coherent vision of supremacy, and as being itself replete with conceptual problems that are unnecessary to the resolution of cases. It is further suggested that the conflict approach is in itself sufficiently flexible to be adapted to all situations.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublius The Journal of FederalismSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207