The consensus-clarifying role of deliberative mini-publics in constitutional amendment: A reply to Oran Doyle and Rachael Walsh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oran Doyle and Rachael Walsh’s article “Constitutional Amendment and Public Will Formation: Deliberative Mini-Publics as a Tool for Consensus Democracy” is a welcome addition to the literature on Ireland’s efforts to integrate deliberative citizen-involved structures into its constitutional amendment process. We agree that the Citizens’ Assembly on abortion played a role in shaping the legal position that ultimately emerged in Irish law; we disagree, however, with the authors’ account of how that occurred. In particular, we do not believe the Irish experience supports the claim that deliberative mini-publics help to build the consensus for constitutional amendment. On the contrary, on each occasion where amendment processes incorporating a deliberative element have succeeded in Ireland, there has been clear evidence of an enduring pre-existing public consensus over the core of the amendment proposed. We suggest that the potential value of deliberative mini-publics might more accurately be seen as one of consensus-clarifying rather than consensus-building. While a mini-public may be unlikely to create a novel constitutional consensus, it can have a significant—potentially causal—role in converting a general and disparate desire for change into a specific form. That, in our view, is what occurred with the repeal and replacement of Ireland’s constitutional position on abortion. We argue that a careful analysis of the process provides tangible evidence that the Assembly affected the outcome in clear and specific ways: its significant impact was not in creating a constitutional consensus that had previously been absent, but rather, we argue, in putting on the agenda, and coalescing support around, a specific form of legal change.
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 | 0.100 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.062 | 0.079 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".