Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishThe author argues that two ideas, the protection of atomiscic human rights and the traditional balancing of those rights, are mistakenly perceived as central to constitutional adjudication in the United States and Canada. Rather than rights acting as “trumps,” rights channel the kinds of reasons governments can invoke when acting in different spheres. Similarly, balancing rhetoric does not adequately describe the process of judicial decisionmaking. Instead, constitutional adjudication primarily entails judicial efforts to define the kinds of reasons that are impermissible justifications for state action in different spheres. The author demonstrates how to see traditional balancing rhetoric as obscuring a decisionmaking process that is better characterized as a judicial definition of impermissible justifications or excluded reasons. francaisL’auteur argumente le fait que deux idees, soit la protection des droits de la personne et l’equilibre traditionnel de ces droits, sont percues, par megarde, comme etant au centre des decisions constitutionnelles aux Etats-Unis et au Canada. Au lieu que les droits agissent en «atout», ils canalisent le genre de raisons que les gouvernements invoquent lorsqu’ils les violent. De meme, le discours en faveur de l’equilibre ne decrit pas de facon adequate le processus de la prise de decision judiciaire. Les decisions constitutionnelles englobent plutot des efforts judiciaires visant a determiner le genre de raisons qui representent des justifications inadmissibles pour des actions de l’Etat dans des spheres differentes. L’auteur montre comment on peut voir le discours de l’equilibre traditionnel comme voilant un processus decisionnel qui releve plutot de la definition judiciaire de justificatifs inadmissibles ou de raisons exclues.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".