Towards a Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conventions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The status of the conventions of the constitution is controversial. According to traditional understanding they are binding constitutional, but not legal, rules because they are not judicially enforceable. However, an analysis of the arguments advanced in support of the proposition that conventions are not, or are not even capable of being, legal rules shows them to be unpersuasive. While conventions are not now recognized as part of constitutional law, this does not prevent courts from so recognizing them in the future. Furthermore, neither conflict between conventional and legal rules, nor the conventions’ alleged uncertainty, nor the apparent difficulty to craft a suitable remedy for their enforcement, nor yet their political origin, constitute insuperable obstacles to their recognition as legal rules. Understanding the law as inextricably linked to, rather than hermetically insulated from, social practices, as advocated for example by FA Hayek, courts ought to recognize and enforce conventions, subject to constraints of justiciability.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it