La interpretación constructiva en el constitucionalismo commonwealth: ¿activismo o vandalismo judicial?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the model of constitutionalism that operates today in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia, with particular focus on the duty of progressive interpretation that this model imposes on the judges. According to this kind of interpretation, legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the protected rights, even if that leads beyond the literal meaning of the legal norms. The paper starts with a brief description of the basic structure of the model as a cooperative scheme of rights protection. Later, it offers an analysis of some examples of the constructive interpretation in the case law of the Canadian Supreme Court and the British House of Lords, with the aim of highlighting the self-imposed limits of judicial activism. Finally, the author attempts to find a proper justification for this kind of interpretation through a substantive conception of legality, which includes the constitutional values that judges invoke to revise the legislation.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it