Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some jurisdictions of the Global South, courts seized with social rights claims have occasionally issued orders that help build state capacity. These remedies can take various forms. Some are managerial, others are dialogic. Some are specific and individualized, while others attempt to confront structural problems. Generally, these orders neglect the work of developing substantive rights doctrine. Instead, they work to build a more effective, coordinated, and attentive government. In short, these orders see courts offer institutional support to other state actors. This Article surfaces institutional support as a potential approach in social rights litigation. Drawing on landmark social rights proceedings in India, South Africa, and Colombia, the Article argues that this varied remedial approach has already been successfully deployed and may constitute one of the contributions of courts in the Global South to comparative law. Institutional support can also be understood as a trade-off between the competing dimensions of transformative constitutionalism. On one hand, the approach presents paths for achieving meaningful judicial impact, while curbing some of the risks associated with enforcing social rights. On the other, it neglects the work of elaborating social rights’ critical political vision, as well as substantive rights doctrine. Institutional support also implies an uncoupling of constitutional rights and judicial remedies, but this particular feature is welcome. The uncoupling of right and remedy can help manage the public’s expectations of what courts can accomplish, and it can help foster a rights discourse that is less court centric.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".