Bibliographic record
Abstract
As constitutional actors, legislatures are accustomed to asserting their understanding of the constitutionality of the legislation they enact. They are also not uncommonly engaged in constitutional disputes with other constitutional actors. At times, they appear to be avoiding their constitutional role, informally “delegating” it to another actor, and for this they are likely to be subject to criticism. But are there times legislatures – and legislators – stand back, suspend judgment, and engage in what I am calling “constitutional agnosticism”? Are there times when they should be? Whether constitutions are limited to institutional organization or are aspirational, written or unwritten or a hybrid, easy or difficult to amend, one thing they must do is help maintain stability in the country, at least sufficient to allow for orderly transition of power within a recognized government structure. At a higher level, the constitution may play a much greater role in shaping common values or in allowing a regular “conversation” about identifying and defining the values that “matter.” Without saying that both of these are functions the Constitution must fulfill, they are important functions that constitutions do fulfill and the first, if the country is to function at all, must be filled in some manner or under some authority. The constitution's capacity to meet these goals of stability, orderly transition, and/or shaping of the nation's value structure depends on the extent to which it is recognized as “legitimate” by the public or by those who have been acknowledged as “speaking for” the public.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".