Seeking a Balance of Power through a Neutral Third Party Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Atlantic constitution-making processes, including the ones undertaken in Latin America in the early nineteenth century, were marked by the quest for a balanced state power that would allow State unity. This article focuses mainly on the efforts of Mexican constitutionalists to define an institutional framework that would avoid the fragmentation of the political structure of the State. I discuss how they introduced an important institutional innovation: the Supreme Conservative Power (Supremo Poder Conservador), a neutral third-party mechanism, to manage conflicts between the three branches of government. This is the only case in the Hispanic world where a mechanism of this kind was established in a republican regime. The aim of this article is to gauge the breadth and limitations of this mechanism. Los procesos constituyentes derivados de las revoluciones Atlánticas, incluyendo aquellos que se llevaron a cabo en América Latina, estuvieron marcados por la búsqueda de un diseño constitucional que garantizara a la vez el equilibrio entre los tres órganos de gobierno y la unidad del poder del Estado. Este artículo analiza los esfuerzos realizados en México para elaborar un diseño constitucional que evitara la fragmentación de la estructura política del Estado mexicano. Se concentra en el estudio de un innovador dispositivo constitucional: el Supremo Poder Conservador, que fungió como tercera parte neutral y cuya finalidad fue mediar en un eventual conflicto entre los tres poderes del Estado. La importancia del Supremo Poder Conservador consiste en el hecho de haber sido el único dispositivo de esta índole en el mundo Hispánico que fue establecido en un régimen republicano. El objetivo principal en este artículo es indagar los alcances y los límites de tal mecanismo.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".