Weak form of judicial review: apontamentos sobre o controle de constitucionalidade no Canadá, Nova Zelândia, Israel e Inglaterra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The text has the purpose to analyze the constitutionality control\nsystems, with special focus on the judicial system. Aims to\ndemonstrate that the judicial review suffers several changes depending on the historical context in which cultural and social\ninserted, can be divided, for example, according to the intensity\nof the performance of the judiciary in the exercise of such control.\nBased on this parameter, the judicial review will be rated on\nstrong (strong-form judicial review) or weak (weak-form judicial\nreview), depending on whether the last word belongs or not to\nthe magistrate. Analyzes as well, briefly, as the weak-form judicial\nreview proves this in some countries, such as Canada, Israel,\nNew Zealand and England, each with its peculiarities but united\nby a common premise, which is, that it is not for the judiciary to\nexercise sovereign isolated and review of the constitutionality of\nthe law.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".