The republican virtues of the \n“new commonwealth model of \nconstitutionalism”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a republican theory of democracy as equally shared popular control, drawn from \nPhilip Pettit’s recent work, this article argues in favor of the “new commonwealth model of \nconstitutionalism” practiced in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere. It claims that the emphasis \nthat the new commonwealth model places on political agents in the rights-related dimensions \nof the legislative process corresponds with the republican account of rights as political claims \nbut also that the constricted role played by judges under the model answers to a number of \nimportant republican concerns around contestation and the dispersal of power. In particular \nthe article argues that the role of judges under the model can be understood as contributing \nto the gradual emergence of norms that are “commonly avowable” or shareable, and to the \nrefining of those norms over time, such that it enhances the control exercised by citizens over \ngovernment. In this way the role of judges under the model—in contrast to that under outright legal constitutionalism—can be understood as enhancing democracy, where democracy \nis understood in this republican way.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".