Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mark Walters’s book examines the intellectual development and legacy of Albert Venn Dicey, one of the most influential constitutional theorists of the twentieth century. By sifting through an impressive array of published and unpublished sources, Walters reconstructs Dicey’s characteristic legal turn of mind and invites readers to interpret it in the best possible light by highlighting implicit, but unarticulated, connections between his theory of constitutional law and the much older tradition of common law constitutionalism. The book deepens one’s understanding of the historical context that enveloped and informed Dicey’s distinct legal perspective and convincingly debunks the popular assumption that his influential constitutional theory repurposes Austinian conceptions of law and sovereignty. Furthermore, the book questions whether other aspects of Dicey’s constitutional theory – particularly, his provocative excursus on the relationship between the rule of law and droit administratif – should be reconsidered in light of subtle revisions in his later works. While Walters’s pluralistic interpretation of Dicey’s assessment of droit administratif is more tentative, it sheds an important new light on how his highly influential constitutional theory might be rehabilitated to enable contemporary public lawyers and theorists to grapple with otherwise intractable problems through the common law method of reasoning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".