Giudice costituzionale e trasparenza: un binomio sempre piu ricorrente
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muovendo dal suo carattere multidisciplinare, l’elaborato esamina la nozione di trasparenza nell’ambito del sindacato di costituzionalità. In particolare, fra le molteplici accezioni che essa può assumere, viene approfondita quella di trasparenza del ragionamento giuridico, dapprima su un piano teorico e successivamente attraverso l’analisi di due esperienze costituzionali, quella francese e quella canadese, con l’obiettivo di dimostrare come essa corrisponda ad un’esigenza particolarmente avvertita al giorno d’oggi. Moving from its multidisciplinary character, the essay aims to analyse the concept of transparency in constitutional adjudication. Among the several senses of transparency, the paper tackles the idea of transparency in constitutional reasoning, also known as “transparency in rationale”, and it seeks to demonstrate, through the analysis of recent developments in the French and Canadian systems, that the duty to provide reasons and justification is nowadays particularly felt by constitutional judges.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".