L’encadrement constitutionnel de la révision des circonscriptions électorales - Étude de droit comparé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the framework of representative democracies, the electoral redistricting aims to give jurisdiction to the election of members of parliamentary assemblies. Far from being a neutral and purely administrative measure, as evidenced by the tormented history of gerrymandering, this operation has many consequences on the fairness of election results, the balance of power between political parties, the formation of governmental majorities, and furthermore on the representation of interests, ideas, and values. In connection with the ongoing evolution of mentalities, the principles guiding the implementation of electoral constituencies are experiencing, in the continuity of secular change of government forms, a new metamorphosis tending to bring the people and the government closer together, so as to ultimately reach citizens’ expectations. Thus, electoral districts are expected to be in line with a more ambitious vision of equal representation, which requires not only voting equality but also effective representation and delimitation of parliamentary constituencies subtracted from pressures of political power. This trend, which is common to several legal systems, opens the way for a comparative study focused on four countries with different electoral traditions: the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, and France. Beyond conventional opinions, it will be possible, at the intersection of law and politics, to bring out the many implications that these mutations induce on the consistency of electoral constituencies, on the nature of political representation and, ultimately, on the strengthening and renewal of democracy.
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 | 0.034 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".