Evolutionary Analysis: Originalism and the Impact of Interpretive Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
controlling interpretive decisions. 2Whether a judge is an originalist, a dynamist, or something in between, the judge's adherence to a specific interpretive theory has no bearing on the results that judge will reach.On the contrary, a judge's personal politics govern the substance of that judge's interpretive holdings, and interpretive theories become no more than ethereal forms of rhetoric used to justify political decisions.Given the controversy surrounding the constraints imposed by theories of construction, I will not confine myself to an exploration of Justice Rand's jurisprudential impact on the world of interpretive theory.Instead, I will turn this subject on its head and consider interpretive theory's impact on Justice Rand's jurisprudence.Did interpretive theory govern the meanings that Justice Rand found when interpreting the text of legislation, or was his jurisprudence governed entirely by his personal biases and beliefs?Did interpretive theory constrain Justice Rand to reach interpretive holdings that conflicted with his personal ideologies, or did he simply use interpretive theory as a mode of justifying the injection of his personal views into the text of legislation?Can interpretive theory ever provide meaningful constraints in the interpretation of legislative language?These questions are explored throughout this article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".