Proposes a framework to measure epistemic governance systems, indicating new ways to compare them.
If epistemic constitutions are to become standard objects of scientific comparison, then the field requires instruments of measurement. This paper proposes the foundations of a metrology for epistemic constitutions: a systematic framework for measuring, evaluating, and comparing epistemic governance systems along eight candidate dimensions. We propose the blind constitutional trial as the gold standard experimental design: multiple independent teams implementing the same published constitution with different underlying models, comparing the convergence of their epistemic outputs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Javier Albuixech-Carrascosa (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: