MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964919294 · doi:10.4000/allemagne.1302

Homogénéité, révision constitutionnelle et décision fondamentale : reprise et critique de concepts schmittiens chez Böckenförde et Capitant

2014· article· fr· W2964919294 on OpenAlex
Jean-Claude Monod

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tant René Capitant qu’Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde ont fait un usage inventif et critique de concepts schmittiens, qu’ils transforment et dépassent dans leur œuvre. Sur fond d’interprétation de la crise de Weimar, il s’agit notamment de la notion d’homogénéité politique, des limites de la révision constitutionnelle et du rapport entre Constitution et forme politique. Böckenförde les réoriente dans la perspective d’une « consolidation » de l’État démocratique comme « État de droit social ». La question des fondements normatifs de l’État suppose, quant à elle, de s’écarter de Schmitt au plan axiologique.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.331 · 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