Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This book articulates and defends a principle of public reason (PR), and shows how it is both central and useful for thinking about legitimacy in constitutional law and theory. The principle rests upon a deceptively simple idea, characteristic of political liberalism, that political principles should be suitably acceptable to those whom they are to bind. Some arguments, if present in the minds of legislators or policymakers, are not qualified to figure in the public defence of a law. For all the problems, complications, and shortcomings of this idea, the book takes it seriously. Part I will lay down the philosophical groundwork for the idea: it argues that public reason is a plausible interpretation of a broader concept of the common good, and that it is based on respect for persons, equality, and freedom. Part II provides an overview of the uses of the ideal of public reason in some representative constitutional national systems, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and Israel. In doing so, it discusses the idea of motive-based constitutional scrutiny, reflects upon some of the main problems that such scrutiny raises, and studies the uses of public reason in the spheres of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and anti-discrimination law. In Part III of the book, an idea of a ‘supranational public reason’ is articulated, and the book reflects upon the uses of this ideal in those (quasi-) constitutional systems that transcend national boundaries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".