MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bridging comparative politics and comparative constitutional law: Constitutional design in divided societies

2008· book-chapter· en· W4388433419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sujit Choudhry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceLawAutonomyConstitutional lawEthnic group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Human Development Report (HDR), published annually by the United Nations Development Programme, is an unlikely stimulus for reflection upon the state of the field of comparative constitutional law. Although the Human Development Reports take a broad understanding of development, constitutional law has never occupied center stage. However, the HDR 2004 is different. Entitled Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World, the HDR 2004 opens up by stating that “[m]anaging cultural diversity is one of the central challenges of our time”. The report supports this contention by drawing on a wide range of examples, from disputes over official languages in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, to the political representation of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Fiji, to demands for asymmetric regimes of regional autonomy in Quebec and Catalonia, to the competing nationalisms of Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Cyprus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.049
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.188
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.147 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207