Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The book contributes to the global debate about the notion of dignity in constitutional law by contrasting how the apex courts of Canada, Colombia, Egypt, the European Union, and Israel operationalize the concept in their jurisprudence. The five jurisdictions share an Abrahamic faith and secularization tendencies, albeit in different degrees; their legal systems host a plurality of legal and societal values; and their courts have the reputation of being activist. An in-depth analysis of judicial rulings that had a significant impact on the national constitutional culture or reflected on dignity at length identifies two common denominators. First, most of their decisions on dignity are grounded in the works of a limited group of thinkers, in particular, Immanuel Kant and Ronald Dworkin. Second, virtually all the jurisdictions initially structured dignity as a binary notion: dignitary harms affected both the individual or the small group concerned and the society as a whole, as they demeaned also the dignity of the polity that allow such harms. However, these courts have often progressively distanced dignity from its relational component, emphasizing its atomistic aspect and its call for autonomy and self-determination and espousing a narrative of dignity centered on its secularization. In Egypt and Israel, the apex courts have avoided repudiating explicitly the Islamic or Jewish factor, which formally enjoys a special constitutional role; in Europe and the Americas, the rejection of the prevailing religious traditions has been more transparent and vocal.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".