Do constitutions guarantee equal rights across socioeconomic status? A half century of change in the world's constitutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For those disadvantaged by bias and barriers based on socioeconomic status (SES), constitutions can provide a defense against discrimination and a foundation for greater equality in social, economic, and political life. In light of the near-global commitment to a multi-dimensional poverty reduction agenda and the increased inclusion of marginalized groups in constitution-drafting processes, this article examines how 193 constitutions address SES and how this has changed over time. The majority of constitutions guarantee equal access to primary education across SES (59%) and prohibit discrimination on this basis (58%). Fewer guarantee access to healthcare (20%), equal rights in employment (15%), eligibility for legislative office (4%), and voting rights (4%) across SES. Constitutions adopted after 1990 are considerably more likely to protect equal rights across SES than older ones. However, 25% of constitutions – including 17% of those adopted since 1990 – restrict political participation based on socioeconomic 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 | 0.029 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".