Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Liberal legal systems face an important problem in deciding whether the affirmative constitutional right of assembly and/or association should include a corresponding negative right to exclude unwanted participants. The US Supreme Court has developed a strong right of non-association, also salient for assemblies. Other liberal legal systems have not developed strong rights of non-assembly or non-association. The divergence reflects distinctive features of the US legal system: a rigid public-private distinction; the conflation of constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and association; and the reification of paramount constitutional rights that categorically supersede competing interests. In contrast, legal systems in Europe and Canada take a more nuanced view of the public-private distinction; disaggregate rights of free speech, assembly, and association; and authorize judicial balancing of competing rights and interests. Those legal doctrines and practices discourage recognition of rights to non-association and non-assembly. Normatively, liberal democratic commitments to equal citizenship, pluralism, and collective self-governance counsel against a right of non-association, which tends to benefit relatively powerful groups. The importance for liberal democracy of assemblies’ public openness and contestability favours a constitutional regime that protects assembly from unwanted participants, such as counter-protesters, only in the event of violence or wholesale silencing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".