MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W210173211

The Unwritten Constitution and the Rule of Law

2004· article· en· W210173211 on OpenAlexaff
David Dyzenhaus

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawOpposition (politics)ConstitutionPolitical scienceLegitimacyDutyRule of lawLegal positivismJudicial reviewArgument (complex analysis)DemocracyPublic lawPhilosophy of lawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The argument of this paper is that debate about the legitimacy of judicial resort to unwritten constitutional values cannot be resolved by requiring judges to anchor their resort in values that are stated in the constitutional text. For opposition to judicial resort to such values is most fundamentally opposition to judicial authority to invalidate statutes on a value basis, whether written or unwritten. In fact, the dispute here is between the common law tradition and legal positivism, with the latter assuming a guise of a democratic positivism that marginalizes judges. The paper uses the theoretical writings of Justice Scalia as the main foil for its argument that judges who adopt this guise fail in their duty to uphold the rule of law.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207