Bibliographic record
Abstract
And of course disagreements do arise, often with more vehemence in constitutional than in ordinary politics.The making of a constitution frequently seems to be subject to the same tug of interests, prejudices and posturing that affects all politics.This is hardly surprising.The burden of debate over constitutional reform is carried by the politicians of the day.They run for office on platforms that have constitutional planks.They debate those questions largely through the institutions of ordinary politics.It is logical that the trade-offs, resentments, and manoeuvring of ordinary politics should also shape the constitutional agenda.But this does jar dramatically with the desire for national affirmation and consensus with which constitutional politics is often invested, at least in the popular arena.The wide gap between the exalted expectations and the political manoeuvring can produce a sense of severe disenchantment.How then should constitutional politics be conducted in order to produce a better match between expectation and fulfilment?What should our aspirations and Professor and Dean of Law, University of Sydney.My thanks to Eric Ghosh
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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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".