Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like corals, throughout centuries, build coral reefs, so do courts, by applying and reviewing laws against higher legal values, reveal the rich content of constitutional principles. – Russian Constitutional Court Justice Gadis Gadzhiev Constitutional Court is not a painter, whose task is to cover the canvas with pre-selected color; it is an artist who must paint a picture on this canvas. – Russian Constitutional Court Justice Boris Ebzeev Constitutional Court has no right to substitute itself for the people who ratified the Constitution … and has no right to rewrite the Constitution at its discretion. – Russian Constitutional Court Justice Viktor Luchin This chapter examines the jurisprudence of the 2nd Constitutional Court to see whether political elites succeeded in having the Court comply with their objectives, how they used judicial review, and what the Court did with its broad judicial review powers. The Russian Constitutional Court resumed its work in February 1995, after the Federation Council appointed its last Justice, Marat Baglai. At that time, the Court was in a difficult position: the new 1993 constitution took away certain powers from the Court and expanded the powers of the president; some regions boycotted the tribunal for being too centralist; Yeltsin's supporters blasted the Court for its antipresidential bias in the 1993 constitutional crisis; and Yeltsin's arch rivals hoped to use the reconstituted Court to revenge the president. Moreover, the Court itself was split between the supporters and opponents of the Russian President.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".