Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This introduction goes over the research questions and assumptions of the study and summarises some of the key findings given in this book. The book addresses whether there was an upper maximum to regional demands as well as when constitutional principles lead to ethnocentric policies that exacerbate mistrust and instability. Constitutional institutions in a multinational state should allow, as appropriate, debates over language, symbols and resources. Furthermore, these institutions should promote cross-national identity collaboration, recognise regional and state majorities as having the same normative value and have systems in place to protect human dignity. The triangle produced by the links between these three elements has a compounding effect on societal perception of the legitimacy of a constitutional system. Three assumptions lead this analysis. Firstly, over the previous three decades, regionalism has become a global-changing phenomenon, spawning reforms, referendums, disagreements and wars. Secondly, multinational constitutional systems must adapt, particularly during crises involving central and regional authorities. Lastly, because constitutional law is path-dependent, meaningful evaluations of the impact of regional crises necessitate a contextual methodology. This book looks at two forms of regional crises that overlapped in several ways. The first category comprises post-conflict cultures where peace talks were linked to constitutional reforms. Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, New Caledonia and Bougainville are among the regions covered. Communities with a specific historical claim to regional governance are the second regional crisis group. Sicily, Alaska, Quebec, Hong Kong and the Northern Territory are all part of this group. In the chapters that follow this introduction, it will be argued that constitutional law may be a positive driver of change when it aids in the establishment of agreements based on shared values. Constitutional law, on the other hand, is a negative driver of change because it establishes ideological constraints on the recognition of identity claims.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".