Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье проведено сравнительное исследование теории «живой конституции» как одного из учений о сущности конституции, используемого в российской и зарубежной науке конституционного права, а также в конституционно-правовой практике (в том числе в деятельности судебных органов конституционного контроля) государств, принадлежащих к различным правовым семьям: США, Канады, Индии, ФРГ, Венгрии, Польши, Российской Федерации, Украины, Хорватии. Установлено, что данная теория получила всеобщее признание, независимо от характеристик правовых систем государств и моделей организации конституционного контроля. Выявлены факторы объективного и доктринального характера, обусловившие такое признание. Исследована конституционно-правовая практика указанных государств, сложившаяся в результате использования теории «живой конституции», выявлены возможные направления ее применения в прагматическом значении — при толковании конституции судебными органами конституционного контроля в конституционной практике всех исследованных государств. При этом в практике судебных органов конституционного контроля США, ФРГ, Венгрии, Польши, Хорватии сложились пределы использования теории «живой конституции»; более широкое применение данной теории (в Российской Федерации и в Украине) может иметь непредсказуемые последствия. Выявлено влияние теории «живой конституции» на содержание программной и стабилизирующей функций конституции как основополагающего регулятора базовых общественных отношений. The article provides a comparative study of the theory of the "living constitution" as one of the teachings on the essence of the constitution, used in the Russian and foreign science of constitutional law, as well as in constitutional and legal practice (including in the activities of the judicial bodies of constitutional control) of states, belonging to various legal families - USA, Canada, India, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Croatia. It has been established that this theory has received universal recognition, regardless of the characteristics of their legal systems and models of the organization of constitutional review. The factors of an objective and doctrinal nature that led to such recognition are identified. The article studies the constitutional and legal practice of these states, which has developed as a result of the use of the theory of "living constitution", identifies possible directions of its application. In a pragmatic sense — when interpreting the constitution by the judicial authorities of the constitutional review in the constitutional practice of all the studied states. At the same time, in the practice of the judicial bodies of constitutional control in the USA, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, there are limits to the use of the theory of the "living constitution"; wider use of this theory (in the Russian Federation and in Ukraine) can have unpredictable consequences. The article reveals the influence of the theory of "living constitution" on the content of the programmatic and stabilizing functions of the constitution as a fundamental regulator of basic social relations.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".