Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A motive-based constitutional theory, which resonates with the ideal of public reason (PR), raises some difficulties for a judicial practice which must be dealt with for a theory to be convincing. This chapter uses, as a primary case study, a 1971 judgment of the US Supreme Court Palmer v. Thompson that illustrates the controversy regarding obstacles facing a judge when attempting to ascertain the true motives, or purposes, of a law under scrutiny. It is shown that the alleged evidentiary difficulty regarding legislative motives could be discerned ‘relatively easy’. On occasions, a court may even have direct insight into legislators’ motives as revealed through their own statements and affirmations. Often the evidence is only indirect but still very convincing, along the lines of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ (Canadian jurisprudence is used to illustrate this point). Often the argument about motives is based on a reasoning about the effects of the regulation under scrutiny: the two strands of reasoning (about motives and effects) should not be seen as mutually antithetical. Sometimes effects-based inquiry is seen as a prerequisite to a subsequent inquiry into motives, while another way of harmonizing motives and effects may be by seeing effects as indicators of most likely motives. It is also clear that judicial scrutiny of legislative purposes/motives is greatly facilitated—indeed, mandated—in those constitutional systems which openly embrace proportionality analysis as a canonical model for constitutional scrutiny, as illustrated in this chapter by top courts in South Africa and Israel, among others.
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 | 0.087 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".