Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Remedies have in the past and should in the future occupy a central place in constitutional theory. It is a sign of its maturity that dialogic theories of judicial review have produced new remedies such as suspended declarations of invalidity and declarations of incompatibility. Dialogic remedies, like dialogic theories in general, are vulnerable to critiques from judicial constitutionalists that they weaken the role of courts. This article responds by outlining a two-track approach to remedies inspired in part by Alexander Bickel. In the first track, successful litigants should generally receive some tangible remedy from a court, but in the second track, courts should generally defer to the superior ability of legislatures and the executive to select among a range of systemic remedies to produce better compliance with rights in the future. Such an approach follows the aspirations of dialogic theories in drawing on the distinctive and complementary strengths of judicial and political constitutionalism. The two-track approach is applied to remedial decisions involving both laws and executive actions. Examples include a Canadian decision that employed a suspended declaration of invalidity but also allowed judicial exemptions from an assisted suicide offense and South African cases that prevent evictions and provide remedies for individual students while ordering engagement to achieve systemic housing and educational remedies.
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 | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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.
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".