Constitutional Courts, Media and Public Opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, MEDIA AND PUBLIC OPINION This book explores how constitutional courts have transformed communication and overcome their reluctance to engage in direct dialogue with citizens. How has the information revolution affected the relationship of constitutional courts with public opinion and the media? The book looks in detail at the commu- nication strategies of the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, and in Europe the German Federal Constitutional Tribunal, the French Conseil Constitutionnel and the Italian Constitutional Court, arguing that when it comes to the relationship between courts and the media, different jurisdictions share many similarities. It focuses on the consequences of the communication revolu- tion of courts both in terms of their relationship with public opinion and of the legitimacy of judicial review of legislation. Some constitutional courts have attracted criticism by engaging in proac- tive communication and, therefore, arguably yielding to the temptation of public support. The book argues that objections to the developing institutional communi- cations employed by courts originate from the traditional understanding of public opinion concerning political branches. It considers the burden the communica- tion revolution has placed on constitutional courts to achieve a balance between transparency and seclusion, proximity and distance from public opinion. It puts forward important arguments for how this balance can be achieved. The book will interest scholars in constitutional law and public comparative law, sociologists, historians, political scientists, and scholars of media law and communication studies. Volume 30 in the series Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".