The influence of procedural features of constitutional control on the style of argumentation: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of the study was the procedural features of constitutional control that affect the style of constitutional and judicial argumentation. The author sought to identify and analyze the parameters of norm-control activity that determine the content of argumentation techniques, using as an empirical basis of the study the experience of organizing constitutional control in Russia, Australia, Austria, Germany, Israel, Spain, Italy, Canada, USA, Taiwan, France and South Africa. Particular attention was paid to such procedural and procedural factors as the model of constitutional control, the procedure for considering cases, including the specifics of raising questions addressed by judges to participants in court proceedings, the availability of texts of procedural documents, the tradition of presenting the text of a court decision, the number of judges, the collegial procedure for making a decision and the content of the institute of dissenting opinion. Using the concept of argumentation style and identifying the correlation between specific procedural rules and argumentation patterns arising in the practice of constitutional justice, the author outlined the advantages and disadvantages of certain parameters of judicial control over the constitutionality of normative acts. In general, the conducted research allows us to conclude that the institutional environment of norm-controlled activity is formed not only by procedural rules, but also by legal traditions that dominate in a particular state, since the relevance, suitability and relevance of individual argumentation strategies used within the framework of constitutional control largely depend on their compatibility with the nature of legal thinking.
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 | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; 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".