MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119648700 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3569

Whipping Up a Storm: Trying to Make Sense of Constitutional Law

2020· article· en· W3119648700 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Allan C. Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyLawSupreme courtPoliticsDemocratic legitimacyPolitical scienceFidelityLaw and economicsDemocracyConstraint (computer-aided design)SociologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effort to make sense out of what the judges of any Supreme Court do is all the more pressing and acute in times of political turbulence. Lawrence Lessig’s Fidelity and Constraint offers itself as one such effort to distinguish constitutional decision-making from “the ad hoc in politics” by its reliance upon principled and neutral reasons; it is the judges’ detached and professional nature that underwrites their democratic legitimacy and institutional commitment. This review challenges those claims and demonstrates how Lessig’s analysis does more to undermine that project than achieve it.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.111
Scholarly communication0.0230.035
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207