MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7021112684

NEW COMMONWEALTH MODEL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM: CANADA E REGNO UNITO

2015· article· it· W7021112684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of Pisa) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthGovernment (linguistics)Carry (investment)High Court
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il presente lavoro consiste in un'analisi dei sistemi di giustizia costituzionale di Canada e Regno Unito, con particolare attenzione al tema delle garanzie a difesa dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali. Sulla scorta di detta analisi, si discute circa l'opportunità di considerare corretta la modellistica ideata da Gardbaum e sostenuta da parte della dottrina, secondo cui i sistemi di giustizia costituzionale di Canada, Regno Unito e Nuova Zelanda sarebbero da ricondurre ad un medesimo modello di giustizia costituzionale, denominato New Commonwealth model of constitutionalism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.016
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of Pisa)Same topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207