Po Jen Yap, Constitutional Dialogue in Common Law Asia (Oxford University Press, 2015)†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, scholars have theorized new models of constitutional review that avoid conferring on the courts the final word on constitutional understandings. Scholars have identified this form of constitutionalism variously as the “Commonwealth model of constitutionalism,”1 “weak-form judicial review,”2 the “parliamentary bill of rights model,”3 and “dialogic judicial review.”4 Discussions of this model of review, however, have focused primarily on Commonwealth systems in the West—such as Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the Australian Capital Territory, and the State of Victoria in Australia—with little attention paid to Asia. Po Jen Yap’s new book, Constitutional Dialogue in Common Law Asia, fills this void by exploring a dialogic model of judicial review in three Asian common law systems: Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore. Yap argues that dialogic review is the most attractive approach to constitutional review, both normatively and pragmatically, and his work raises thought-provoking questions about the extent to which the dialogic model is the “constitutional ideal”5 for these Asian legal systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".