Constitucionalismo dialógico y justicia constitucional. Una vuelta larga para volver a las virtudes deliberativas de la Acción Pública de Inconstitucionalidad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through Dialogical Constitutionalism (DC), some theorists believe they have found an escape valve for the global discussion on the legitimacy of judicial control over the law. With the situated contextual methodology, this article analyzes the challenges that DC poses in Latin America, particularly in Colombia, in four sections: i) Why is an attractive theory; ii) Its differences from deliberative democracy (DD); iii) The arguments of Roberto Gargarella in defense of DD, DC, and “A Dialogue between Peers”. This invites us to question whether it is merely new packaging for old discussions. Lastly, iv) I will reflect on the advantages of the Public Action of Unconstitutionality (PA) as a participatory and deliberative legal challenge mechanism, which dialogical potential is not properly appreciated due to a preference bias. Additionally, I will address DC in its two versions: the Canadian institutional version and the conversational version, ultimately proposing a third nuestramerican approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".