Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter makes a case for a new written constitution. It introduces a possible definition of a constitution that was suggested by Lord Bolingbroke in 1733, which states that the constitution is whole assemblage of laws, institutions, traditions, customs and practices that embody how Britain is governed. It also provides another definition that looks at the British constitution in terms of the Hanoverian settlement, which was altered by subsequent statutes and conventions. The chapter emphasizes how a written constitution does not need to be contained in one document but must have a bounded set of such laws that are distinguished from other laws and whose status as the supreme and fundamental law is known, declared and explicit. It cites Canada’s constitution, which includes the Constitution Act 1867, the Constitution Act 1982, and a list of other statutes and orders-in-council specified in a schedule to the 1982 Act.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".