Constitutional Imagination Between the Force of Images and the Power of Names
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Irrespective of the growing awareness of the importance of imagination, those interested in imagination as an activity are bound to be disappointed by the lack of the actionable advice on how to actually engage in the activity of imagining in a more conscious and, hopefully productive manner. While I am still convinced that the study of constitutional imagination won’t get very far without a more systematic and comprehensive speculation on the features of imagination in action, in the time that has passed since the publication of my book I also came to realize that such an endevour, must take into account the aspects of constitutional imagination which are specific both to the forms that mediate it, as well as to the formats and formulations, on which constitutional scholars rely on in communicating the content of their mental images. With this in mind, I approach the highly stimulating comments of my four colleagues below.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".