MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CONTRADICCIONES DE LOS FUNDAMENTOS TEÓRICOS DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN CHILENA CON EL ESTADO CONSTITUCIONAL: NOTAS PARA SU REINTERPRETACIÓN

2008· article· es· W2052861333 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime Bassa Mercado, Christian Viera Álvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de derecho · 2008
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Constitucin, junto con ser norma jurdica, obedece a una ratio que la funda. En el caso de la Carta chilena, los autores postulan que en ella es posible advertir un sincretismo terico (iusnaturalismo, anarcoliberalismo, democracia instrumental), que genera un corpus contradictorio. Asimismo, desde la perspectiva de su interpretacin, el sistema chileno est condicionado por la tendencia originalista. El contenido material de las normas constitucionales evoluciona porque tambin lo hace el consenso poltico presente en el poder constituyente-pueblo. As, a la hora de interpretar la Carta, los criterios de la

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.037
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de derechoSame topicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesFrench-language works237,207