Weak form of judicial review: apontamentos sobre o controle de constitucionalidade no Canadá, Nova Zelândia, Israel e Inglaterra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O texto tem por proposito fazer uma analise dos sistemas de controle de constitucionalidade, com especial enfoque no sistema jurisdicional. Objetiva demonstrar que o judicial review sofre diversas mudancas a depender do contexto historico, cultural e social no qual encontra-se inserido, podendo ser dividido, por exemplo, de acordo com a intensidade da atuacao do Judiciario no exercicio de tal controle. Com base nesse parâmetro, o controle jurisdicional sera classificado em forte (strong-form judicial review) ou fraco (weak-form judicial review), a depender se a ultima palavra pertence ou nao ao magistrado. Analisa-se assim, em breves linhas, como o weak-form judicial review se mostra presente em alguns paises, como no Canada, em Israel, na Nova Zelândia e na Inglaterra, cada qual com suas peculiaridades, mas unidos por uma mesma premissa, qual seja, de que nao cabe ao Judiciario exercer isolada e soberanamente a fiscalizacao da constitucionalidade do ordenamento juridico.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".