Andrej Lang, Review of Afroditi Marketou, Local Meanings of Proportionality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a recurring feature in legal scholarship on proportionality to document the spread of the doctrine across the globe. This sketch of global diffusion is frequently combined with sweeping assertions about the foundational character of proportionality, claiming it to be “a foundational element of global constitutionalism” (at 3),1 “the central concept in contemporary constitutional rights law” (at 3),2 or “one of the most successful legal transplants in the second half of the twentieth century” (at 5).3 Not surprisingly, a stream of scholarship has recently emerged in critical reaction to this successful diffusion narrative. Take the example of David Kenny’s comparative study about Canada and Ireland in which he argues that proportionality is used in “drastically different ways” in those jurisdictions.4 Similarly, Cohen-Eliya and Porat and Bomhoff have separately contrasted balancing in the United States and Germany, finding that despite superficial commonalities, balancing is tied to deeply distinctive constitutional cultures and, accordingly, conducted very differently by US and German courts.5 This critique of the global proportionality script raises essential questions about proportionality from the perspective of comparative legal studies—is there truly a global model of proportionality? Are courts from different jurisdictions even doing roughly the same when they invoke and apply the proportionality doctrine? How should the discipline of comparative law approach the transnational phenomenon of proportionality against this background?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".