El nuevo mecanismo de nombramiento de los Magistrados de la Corte Suprema Canadiense: ¿Un ejemplo que España debería seguir?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente articulo tiene por objetivo espolear el debate en relacion al nombramiento de los magistrados, el procedimiento y los criterios de seleccion del Tribunal Constitucional espanol a la luz de una experiencia extranjera que consideramos interesante por similar y util por estar todavia vigente la controversia en dicho pais. Para ello hemos dividido el articulo en dos apartados. En el primero se analizaran las novedades en relacion al nombramiento de los magistrados, el procedimiento y los criterios de seleccion de la Corte Suprema de Canada, haciendo ademas un breve repaso a su historia y sus problematicas esenciales para obtener una mejor comprension del contexto en el que se han fraguado dichas innovaciones. Y en el segundo apartado, que ademas coincidira con las conclusiones, trataremos de exponer las posibles utilidades del caso canadiense para el constitucionalismo espanol.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".