Constituciones Duraderas – Una Crítica Democrática (Enduring Constitutions – A Democratic Critique)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that formal constitutions and their institutional paraphernalia do more to inhibit and mitigate the emancipatory potential of democracy than to nurture and realize it.\nSpanish Abstract: La relación entre democracia y constituciones es larga y turbulenta. La tendencia de los que se inclinan hacia el lado constitucionalista ha sido la de percibir a la democracia como una amenaza al orden político y a la preservación de ciertos valores considerados importantes, mientras que los que adoptan una postura democrática, más que cualquier otra cosa, tienden a tratar a las constituciones como un obstáculo a la participación popular. En este trabajo, vamos a darle a la teoría constitucionalista un análisis teórico y político más amplio. Con demasiada frecuencia, las constituciones imponen controles y límites a la participación democrática en el nombre de algún otro conjunto de verdades proclamadas o valores que favorecen a las élites. Para el demócrata ferviente, las constituciones formales y su parafernalia institucional hacen más para inhibir y atenuar el potencial emancipador de la democracia que para nutrirla y realizarla.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".