Guest Editorial Preface: Symposium on ‘What can Central and Eastern Europe learn from the development of Canada’s constitutional system?’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the development of technology, transport, and the increase in political, economic, cultural and legal connections, by the 21 st century the world had become more integrated than ever before.This also affects constitutional law, which today is not merely a national issue for states but rather a global field with many interrelations.Comparative constitutional law is applied during the processes of constitution-making and legislation, where best practices are sought.Judges in domestic courts have a judicial dialogue with their colleagues abroad and look at foreign judgements to improve their legal reasoning.To help these developments, constitutional scholars use often a comparative approach in their works and, to better understand their own constitutional system, they compare it with other states' solutions.Alongside dealing with single constitutional law questions from a comparative point of view, it is essential to study the constitutional system of a country also in its entirety, analyzing its historical roots, rules and practice.The international conference entitled 'What can Central and Eastern Europe learn from the development of Canada's constitutional system?' was one of the events where we tried to make a step in this direction.The conference, held at the ELTE Faculty of Law on 28 June 2017, with the kind support of the Embassy of Canada to Hungary, convened a group of scholars to reflect on the history and evolution of the Constitution of Canada, on its written and unwritten dimensions and on its influence abroad.The occasion of the conference was Canada's 150 th anniversary of Confederation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".