Protecting Rights in Common Law Constitutional Systems; a Framework for a Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the changes that have taken place in common law constitutionalism in relation to the protection of rights, broadly defined. The first half of the article explores the way in which four common law nations that expressly protect rights in legislative or constitutional form: New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. The author discusses how the four nations balanced core rights with citizen representation. The second half of the article then explores a common law nation without such protection: Australia. The author argues that the Australian approach demonstrates the impact of constitutionally diffusing power on the protection of rights; once allowance is made for the effects of Australia's written Constitution, rights protection depends on the interplay of political forces in majoritarian parliamentary systems and (to a lesser extent) common law principles applied by independent courts. The author concludes that all nations listed above take a different approach to protecting rights. Notably, Australia provides an interesting study while the author also comments that they have much to learn from the experience of the other four nations.
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 | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".