MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Les particularités du constitutionnalisme uruguayen et ses faiblesses institutionnelles

2015· book-chapter· fr· W2779743566 on OpenAlex
Óscar Sarlo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueÉditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesConstitutionPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les Constitutions d’Amérique latine connaissent des faiblesses institutionnelles, notamment en raison de coups d’État et de réformes constitutionnelles répétés. En Uruguay, les choses furent différentes.Très influencée par celles de ses voisins, la Constitution uruguayenne de 1830 n’était rien de plus qu’un « agenda politique ».En fait, l’Uruguay a été le premier pays d’Amérique latine à intégrer, dans la Constitution de 1830, l’existence des partis politiques, qui ont joué un rôle clé dans l’histoire politique uruguayenne.Concernant le contrôle de constitutionnalité, l’Uruguay est le dernier pays à institutionnaliser une Cour suprême. Cependant l’instance constitutionnelle, dont le consensus et l’impartialité devaient être les clés de base, est devenue une instance politique au service des partis politiques.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0120.109
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.180 · 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