Alla ricerca dell'invisibilita perduta: le "sentenze senza autore" nelle Corti supreme di Stati Uniti e Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In special circumstances US and Canada Supreme Courts avoid the \nidentification of the opinion writers. The paper aims to pinpoint the reasons \nof the lessened polarity between closed and disclosed opinion delivery \nprocess in contemporary constitutional Courts. The article supposes a \nstepwise emergence of hybrid models which leave Courts quite free to \npromote or discourage individually authorized opinions depending on the \nfunction from time to time performed. The pliability of these models \neffectively protects the legitimacy of constitutional courts. \n \nL’esistenza di straordinarie circostanze in cui la Corte suprema statunitense \ne quella canadese escludono l’autorialità delle decisioni, sollecita il \ncomparatista a riflettere tanto sulle ragioni dell’attenuata polarizzazione \nfra trasparenza e segretezza nelle dinamiche procedurali degli organi di \ngiustizia costituzionale contemporanei, quanto sulla possibile comparsa di \nmodelli ibridi, nel cui ambito operano corti sostanzialmente libere di individuare \nla formula deliberativa più adatta all’attività di volta in volta \ncompiuta. La flessibilità di questi modelli consente di tutelare in maniera \nefficace la legittimazione delle corti costituzionali.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".