MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179400873

Los métodos de la reforma informal (The Methods of Informal Amendment)

2019· article· es· W3179400873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Albert

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spanish Abstract: Los academicos han mostrado que las constituciones escritas pueden ser reformadas de manera informal con efectos similares a los que tendria una reforma formal. Pese a ello, los diversos metodos de reforma informal aun no estan bien organizados para poder analizarlos y compararlos. En este articulo examino las formas de la reforma informal, las clasifico como convencionales y no convencionales y propongo un tipo de reforma informal que aun no ha sido apreciado ni teorizado: el desuso constitucional. La desuetud constitucional ocurre cuando una regla constitucional escrita pierde sus cualidades vinculantes sobre los actuales actores politicos como resultado de su desuso consciente y constante y del repudio publico por parte de los actores politicos que los precedieron. El desuso constitucional se asemeja –pero a la vez se diferencia– de las demas formas de reforma informal: es similar porque cambia los significados de las disposiciones constitucionales sin alterar el texto constitucional, pero es diferente en el entendido de que conduce a que la Constitucion pierda validez politica pese a que se mantiene intacto el texto. En este estudio utilizo el ejemplo de la Constitucion de Canada para ilustrar el fenomeno del desuso constitucional. English Abstract: Scholars have shown that codified constitutions may be amended informally with similar effect as a formal amendment. Yet the many forms of informal amendment are not well organized for analysis and comparison. In this article, I examine the forms of informal amendment, I classify them as either conventional and unconventional forms of informal amendment, and I subsequently introduce an as-yet underappreciated and undertheorized form of informal amendment: constitutional desuetude. Constitutional desuetude occurs when a codified constitutional rule loses its binding quality upon political actors as a result of its conscious sustained disuse and public repudiation by preceding political actors. Constitutional desuetude both resembles and differs from other forms of informal amendment: it is similar because it changes constitutional meaning without altering the constitutional text yet it is different because it renders the constitutional text politically invalid though it remains codified and unchanged. I draw from the Constitution of Canada to illustrate the phenomenon of desuetude.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesFrench-language works237,207