MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125089694 · doi:10.30827/acfs.v55i0.15579

Pluralismo liberal, razón pública y libertades básicas

2021· article· es· W3125089694 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Brudner

Bibliographic record

VenueAnales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

¿Qué es lo que tienen de especial ciertas libertades para merecer protección constitucional frente a la regulación legal? ¿En qué se diferencian las llamadas libertades básicas de la libertad general cuya regulación por el Estado da lugar a un escrutinio de los tribunales para un propósito público válido ejercido con cierta indiferencia? ¿Qué nos enseña la especial naturaleza de las libertades básicas sobre el tipo de fines que están cualificados para limitarlas y sobre la grado de respeto que todavía les debemos cuando su limitación está justificada?

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.061
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnales de la Cátedra Francisco SuárezSame topicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesFrench-language works237,207