L’absurdité du critère scriptural pour qualifier la constitution (The Absurdity of the Scriptural Qualifier for a Constitution)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Les constitutionnalistes opposent souvent constitutions ecrites aux constitutions non-ecrites et distinguent les sources constitutionnelles ecrites de celles non-ecrites. Or, cette pratique obscure plus qu’elle ne devoile concernant les objets qu’elle cherche a decrire. Dans cet article, nous demontrerons que l’usage du qualificatif scriptural a pour resultat d’assimiler erronement trois caracteristiques distinctes des normes ou pratiques constitutionnelles: 1) leurs modes de presentation; 2) leurs modes de creation; 3) leurs statuts au sein (ou meme en dehors) de la hierarchie normative. Puisque ces trois caracteristiques ne sont pas toujours alignees les unes sur les autres, cela nous forcerait donc, si nous voulions classifier certaines normes selon chacune de ces caracteristiques en utilisant le critere scriptural, a les decrire de maniere absurde comme etant parfois non-ecrites ecrites non-ecrites, ecrites non-ecrites ecrites , etc. Nous proposerons donc un ensemble de qualifias qui soulignent mieux ce qui est veritablement en jeu pour chacune des caracteristiques des regles en question. English Abstract: Constitutional law scholars often oppose constitutions to constitutions, sources of a constitution to sources of such a constitution. However, this practice causes more confusion than it sheds light on the phenomena that it tries to capture. In this paper, I demonstrate that the use of the scriptural character tends to conflate three distinct characteristics of constitutional norms or practices: 1) their mode of presentation; 2) their mode of creation; and 3) their place in a normative hierarchy. Since these three characteristics are not always aligned together to qualify a constitutional norm or practice as being written or unwritten, we are forced into absurd qualifications such as having to talk about unwritten constitutional norms. I thus offer a clearer set of qualifiers that highlight what is truly at stake with each of those characteristics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".