Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitutionalism in divided societies'How should political communities respond to the opportunities and challenges raised by ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural differences, and, through these responses, thereby promote democracy, social justice, peace, and stability?This is one of the most difficult and important issues of contemporary politics.Even the most casual review of the popular media drives the question home.In a wide range of instances, spanning several continents, in both the developed and developing worlds-for example, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Cyprus, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Nepal, Canada, Spain, and Belgium, to name but a few-it is arguably the central issue of political life.In this symposium, we term these cases, collectively, "divided societies."As a category of political and constitutional analysis, this term does not refer to just those societies that are ethnically, linguistically, religiously, or culturally diverse.What particularly identifies a divided society is that these differences are politically salient-that is, they are persistent markers of political identity as well as bases for political mobilization.Political claims are refracted through the lens of identity, and, thus, political conflict can become synonymous with conflict among ethnocultural groups.Much is at stake in how divided societies respond to the challenges raised by the equation of ethnocultural identity and political interest.The extreme consequences of a failure to address these challenges properly are well known: discrimination and exclusion, civil war and ethnic cleansing, forced assimilation and, at the worst, genocide.But even in the absence of violence, in states I The papers appearing herein were originally presented at a workshop in Toronto in October 2006 under the auspices of the Ethnicity and Democratic Governance Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI), a five-year interdisciplinary project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.A selection of the conference papers appears in this volume; all will appear in an edited volume, CONSTIrTONAL DESIGN FOR DIVIDED SocIEM: INTEGRATION OR ACCOMMODAnON?(Sujit Choudhry ed.,
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.163 | 0.107 |
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".