MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Concept of the Rule-of-Law State in Carl Schmitt’s Verfassungslehre

2014· book· en· W2187267266 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityLawRule of lawLiberalismPoliticsPolitical scienceState (computer science)Argument (complex analysis)Power (physics)Constitutional lawLaw and economicsPolitical philosophySociologyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter focuses on Schmitt’s critique of the rule of law in his Constitutional Theory. Schmitt argues that liberalism, which once tied the rule of law to the protection of individual liberty, has deteriorated into an account in which any valid law is considered legitimate just because it is valid. This critique is driven by Schmitt’s conception of politics, and, as his oral argument in a crucial constitutional case of 1932 illustrates, his position affirms that law cannot be more than a mere instrument of political power and that it can stabilize politics only if the political power is exercised to bring about a substantive homogeneity in the population subject to the law. In conclusion, it is suggested that Schmitt points to genuine weaknesses in the liberal tradition that require an elaboration of a secular conception of authority in which principles of legality play a central role.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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