Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few decades the world has witnessed a profound transfer of power from representative institutions to judiciaries, whether domestic or supranational. The concept of constitutional supremacy—one that has long been a major pillar of the American political order—is now shared, in one form or another, by over one hundred countries across the globe. Numerous post-authoritarian regimes in the former Eastern Bloc, Southern Europe, Latin America, and Asia have been quick to endorse principles of modern constitutionalism upon their transition to democracy. Even countries such as Canada, Israel, Britain, and New Zealand—not long ago described as the last bastions of Westminster-style parliamentary sovereignty—have gradually embarked on the global trend towards constitutionalization. Almost every day newspaper headlines report on issues such as constitutionalization processes in the European Union (EU) and Iraq, trials of ousted despots before international tribunals, and landmark constitutional jurisprudence in the United States, Germany, or South Africa. One of the main manifestations of this trend has been the judicialization of politics—the ever-accelerating reliance on courts and judicial means for addressing core moral predicaments, public policy questions, and political controversies. Armed with newly acquired judicial review procedures, national high courts worldwide have been frequently asked to resolve a range of issues, from the scope of expression and religious liberties, equality rights, privacy, and reproductive freedoms, to public policies pertaining to criminal justice, property, trade and commerce, education, immigration, labor, and environmental protection. Bold newspaper headlines reporting on landmark court rulings concerning hotly contested issues—same sex marriage, limits on campaign financing, and affirmative action, to give a few examples—have become a common phenomenon.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".