Bibliographic record
Abstract
The key critical constitutional debates of the future are likely—and need—to be very different from those that animated the Charter’s first thirty years. Since 1982, the borders between law and politics, rights and utility, and the public and the private have staked out the main territory contested by critical scholarship. However, these borders now demarcate a restricted landscape, drawing critics onto the ground of normative debate preferred by liberal theory, and leading them to propose, at best, a form of moderate pragmatism. A more promising approach lies in reconnecting constitutional debate to the socio-historical strand of critical theory, as represented by the emergent school of constitutional sociology, and in developing this connection in light of the insights of postcolonial studies. The new borders of the constitutional are located between those approaches that accept the epistemological framework of modern Western constitutionalism, and those that make that framework the object of critical inquiry.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| 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".