MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111831069 · doi:10.1017/s0008423907071338

The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency

2007· article· en· W2111831069 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Rayner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityLawConstitutionConstitutionalismPolitical scienceRule of lawInjusticeOpposition (politics)Prime ministerDemocracyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency , David Dyzenhaus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. xv, 250. This book, which began life as the 2004 J.C. Smuts lectures at the University of Cambridge, is contribution to the burgeoning debate about emergency powers in post-9/11 liberal democracies. States that pride themselves on their commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law find themselves engaged in the difficult task of suspending or restricting the operation of civil liberties while simultaneously trumpeting their own commitment to the liberal values that they purport to be defending against threat. As Dyzenhaus usefully reminds us, the predicament is not a new one. Smuts himself not only survived being on the wrong side of a colonial insurrection but, before becoming prime-minister of South Africa and a leading architect of apartheid (a paradigm example of injustice carried on under colour of legality), played a walk-on role in legal opposition to the notorious DORA, the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act that allowed detention without trial in the United Kingdom during the First World War. These are murky waters, indeed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.027
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations113
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207