CONTRADICCIONES DE LOS FUNDAMENTOS TEÓRICOS DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN CHILENA CON EL ESTADO CONSTITUCIONAL: NOTAS PARA SU REINTERPRETACIÓN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ResumenLa Constitución, junto con ser norma jurídica, 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 teórico (iusnaturalismo, anarcoliberalismo, democracia instrumental), que genera un corpus contradictorio.Asimismo, desde la perspectiva de su interpretación, el sistema chileno está condicionado por la tendencia originalista.El contenido material de las normas constitucionales evoluciona porque también lo hace el consenso político presente en el poder constituyente-pueblo. Así, a la hora de interpretar la Carta, los criterios de la Comisión Ortúzar carecen de toda relevancia, no sólo por su ausencia de legitimidad democrática, sino porque no son el reflejo del consenso político que el poder constituyente, el pueblo, presta para la fundamentalidad de las normas constitucionales. ConstitUCiÓn -interPretaCiÓn -iUsnatUraLismo Contradictions of theoretical foundations in Chilean Constitution with the constitutional state: notes for its reinterpretation
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".