MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951270789 · doi:10.1093/ajcl/avz015

The Magnetism of Moral Reasoning and the Principle of Proportionality in Comparative Constitutional Adjudication

2019· article· en· W2951270789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Stacey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Comparative Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsProportionality (law)AdjudicationLawConstitutionalityJurisprudenceConstitutional lawPoliticsConstitutionPolitical scienceLaw and economicsNormativeMoral reasoningSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A constitutional limitations clause manages the conflict between constitutional rights and the legislative pursuit of broader social objectives. In six paradigm postwar constitutional democracies—Canada, Germany, India, Israel, Poland, and South Africa—the principle of proportionality has emerged as the analytical fulcrum of the judicial inquiry into the constitutionality of rights limitations. Criticism of the principle of proportionality has crystallized into three main objections: proportionality analysis devalues rights by exposing them to the ordinary processes of political bargaining; it offends the rule of law because it depends on unpredictable moral reasoning; and it involves the unintelligible balancing of incommensurable goods. This Article considers, first, whether limitations jurisprudence in the paradigm countries contains responses to these objections. It argues that there are ways of meeting the devaluation and incommensurability objections, but suggests that models of analysis that purport to meet the unpredictability objection by minimizing the role of moral reasoning are undermined by the continued judicial reliance on moral reasoning in the paradigm countries. The Article argues, second, that moral reasoning maintains this magnetic attraction over judges because the conception of the rule of law at work in the paradigm countries, and which judges and other public officials are committed to upholding, compels judges and legislators to engage directly and fully with the normative commitments a political community makes and which inform its constitution. Because people reasonably disagree over the content and contours of these normative commitments, judges cannot rely on a de-moralized analysis but must make arguments intended to persuade rational, morally autonomous members of a political community how our most fundamental normative commitments should be understood by the legal system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.062
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Comparative LawSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207