MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744710824 · doi:10.1093/icon/moz078

“Dominion status”: History, framework and context

2019· article· en· W2744710824 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Constitutional Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionContext (archaeology)ReservationHistoryLawPolitical scienceGenealogyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article attempts to explain “Dominion status” by various means. First, it notes that the word “Dominion” has had different meanings over time, even though it is most closely associated with the status acquired by Australia, Canada, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa in the years 1926 to 1931. Second, Dominion status from 1926 to 1931 is compared to the constitutional claims made a century and a half earlier by American colonists. Third, Dominion Status as of 1931 is explained by way of comparison with what came before, paying particular attention to issues of repugnancy, extraterritoriality, reservation and disallowance. And, finally, this article observes the importance of constitutional conventions throughout.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Constitutional LawSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207