MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321368849 · doi:10.24144/2788-6018.2022.06.9

Dialogical theory of constitutional jurisdiction

2023· article· en· W4321368849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Vatamaniyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical and Comparative Jurisprudence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtConstitutionPolitical scienceConstitutional theoryConstitutional lawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The metaphor of dialogue between constitutional jurisdictions and legislatures was born in Canada to describe the role of the Supreme Court after the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. Then he was engaged in the Anglo-American academic space of comparative constitutional law. It is the relationship of the constitutional judiciary to the deliberative paradigm that raises questions, as it is difficult to see how the supervisory function of the judge and his authority to repeal or amend legislative texts can be anything other than a transfer within the limits of the separation of powers. A famous argument in the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison: Justice Marshall postulated that the existence of a written Constitution, supreme since its adoption by a sovereign people, implied a judicial guarantee, even if the text did not state it, which applies to all legal acts. including the law. Constitutional justice developed mainly a century later, and then especially at the end of World War II, as did the theory that accompanied it. Those proposed in the context of continental Europe by the Austrian legal theorist Hans Kelsen, who participated in its creation in Austria in 1920. Schematically, the legal order is a hierarchically structured system of norms, each norm of which is valid when it is produced by a norm of a higher rank, up to the Constitution. The judge checks the validity of the rules within the system; A constitutional judge, whether a court specializing in this control or an ordinary judge headed by a universal Supreme Court, checks the conformity of all or part of the norms with the constitutional norm, thus performing an essential function in structuring the legal order. Outside the European Union, the dialogue metaphor has been reused in two contexts where it has played two very different roles, in the space of English-language comparative law and then in America. Then the theory of democratic deliberation was extended to the constitutional judge. In the dialogic conception, as in other variants of constitutionalism understood as cooperative, the case for constitutional revision derives from the ability of courts to help counter failures of inclusiveness and responsiveness to the political process, framed here in terms of "blind spots" and "inertia weights."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.024
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical and Comparative JurisprudenceSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207