Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Locke's teaching on executive power is widely seen as one of the most problematic features of his constitutional theory. It is generally interpreted to be either an endorsement of extra-constitutional prerogative or a statement of radical legislative supremacy. However, the primary assumption underlying both of these positions—namely, that Locke saw law and constitution as coextensive—is mistaken. On the contrary, Locke's treatment of executive power illuminates his conception of constitutional authority that is distinct from and superior to normal legislation, but also confines prerogative within fundamental legal limits. Locke thus adumbrated many of the key elements of liberal constitutionalism familiar to us today. Résumé. On a tendance à voir dans la doctrine de Locke sur le pouvoir exécutif l'un des éléments les plus problématiques de sa théorie constitutionnelle. Le plus souvent, on l'interprète soit comme une validation de la prérogative extra-constitutionnelle, soit comme une expression de suprématie législative radicale. Cependant, l'hypothèse fondamentale sous-jacente à ces deux positions, selon laquelle, pour Locke, loi et constitution seraient coextensives, est erronée. Au contraire, la façon dont Locke traite le pouvoir exécutif met en lumière sa conception d'une autorité constitutionnelle qui est à la fois distincte de la législation normale et supérieure à elle et qui confine, en même temps, la prérogative dans des limites légales fondamentales. Il s'ensuit, donc, que Locke laissait pressentir de nombreux éléments clés du constitutionnalisme libéral que nous connaissons aujourd'hui.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".