Bringing people into the heart of constitutional design: The Irish Constitutional Convention of 2012–14
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late 2012 the Irish government took the long-anticipated step of establishing the Irish Constitutional Convention (www.constitution.ie),whose first formal session was held on the weekend of January 26-27 2013.Internationally there have been plenty of examples over the years of the involvement of citizens in debates over constitutional reform, whether by giving them a voice in referendums or public initiatives or by allowing them to run for election as members of a convention (a recent example being Iceland's Constitutional Council of 2011).Ireland's Constitutional Convention also included citizens as members, but it is the nature of how these citizens were selected to participate and how the process was run that is of particular interest.There are a small but growing number of cases in which governments have opted to follow 'deliberative principles', selecting citizens at random rather than by election and managing the discussions along deliberative lines.Irish policy makers were influenced by the citizens' assemblies on electoral reform in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia (2004) and Ontario (2007) and the Dutch 1 An earlier version of this chapter was presented to the conference on 'Constitutional Change and People', at the University of Luxembourg, 12 2014.We are grateful to the participants for their comments and feedback and to Akisato Suzuki for his research assistance.We were members of the academic and legal team that supported the work of the Convention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".