MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142348581 · doi:10.1017/s0008423902778165

Partisanship as Political Science: A Reply to Rainer Knopff and F. L. Morton

2002· article· en· W2142348581 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyPoliticsCharterPolitical sciencePosition (finance)Law and economicsEpistemologySociologyLawPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main points of “Ghosts of the JCPC” is that the study of Charter politics is currently dominated by a sterile and well-worn debate over the legitimacy of judicial review. Rainer Knopff and F. L. Morton return to these issues in their reply. They frequently refer to their own position or to my putative positions in their reply to my work. But, they do not engage in a discussion of what is, or in making arguments about how we might understand or explain what is, rather than on constantly judging what is according to our own personal and partisan political prejudices.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0500.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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