Legalitätsfragen des katalanischen Gesetzes über das Selbstbestimmungsreferendum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article confronts the Act regulating the referendum on Catalonian self-determination of 1st October 2017 with the Spanish Constitutional Court’s decision to declare this law as void and unconstitutional. While the Act, both in its lengthy preamble and other provisions, evidently seeks legitimacy when referring to the right of self-determination of Catalans and previous restrictions of their internal self-determination by the Spanish state, it is still incompatible with Spanish constitutional law under several aspects. A more theoretical argument is addressed when the Act speaks of a “breach of the Spanish constitutional compact,” even though the Spanish constitution can hardly be conceived to have a contractual basis. Nevertheless, the draconian reaction of the Spanish government avoided a liberal approach as adopted in similar cases by Canada and, more recently, the UK, and is not likely to bring about a political solution.
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 | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".