Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of “equal participation” provides a useful reframing for the judicial review of campaign finance regulation. This chapter draws on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada on the “right to equal participation” in order to shed light on an alternate approach in the American context. The chapter begins by arguing for a general approach to campaign finance regulation under which the central challenge is to achieve a complex tradeoff between liberty and equality. It then turns to the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court, and it focuses, first, on the role that political equality plays in election law, and second, on the Court’s recent recognition of a new right to participation. It also shows how this right to participation is not rooted in a commitment to political equality. The chapter then sets out the general framework adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to campaign finance, and it identifies the lessons that might be learned from the right to equal participation as enunciated in the Canadian law of democracy cases. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the trend towards unequal participation in the U.S. Supreme Court’s election law jurisprudence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".