MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339861418

UTILIZACIÓN DEL DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL COMPARADO EN LA INTERPRETACIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL: NUEVOS RETOS A LA TEORÍA CONSTITUCIONAL The use of compared constitutional law in constitutional interpretation: new challenges to the constitutional theory

2007· article· es· W2339861418 on OpenAlex
Magno Pinto, Bastos Júnior

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionAdjudicationConstitutional lawPolitical scienceLawArgumentation theoryContext (archaeology)SituatedInterpretation (philosophy)Constitutional reviewHumanitiesPhilosophyGeographyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the impacts on constitutional theory, of the use of foreign materials by the national courts, in the proces of constitutional adjudication. It makes particular reference to this practice by countries linked to the tradition of civil law. After recognizing that the recourse to constitutional dialogue may be situated in the context of argumentation strategies of the courts, it seeks to identify how this growing use, in countries with a tradition civil law, contributes to a wider proces (already underway) of hermeneutic trend in the theories on constitutional interpreta- tion and on the way the current role of the constitution itself is understood. 1

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.132
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.285 · 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