Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many administrative decisions call for meticulous factual determinations. The interests at stake may be serious. For example, whether one obtains immigration status to remain and work in Canada, whether one is granted parole from prison, whether a new television station secures a broadcasting licence, whether a licensed restaurant loses its liquor permit, whether a business person is barred for life from trading in shares on the stock exchange and from holding an office or directorship in any corporation, whether one can build a planned building on one's property, whether a physician loses privileges to work in a hospital - these are critical decisions which are likely to influence one's ability to earn a living or deal with one's private property. Quasi-judicial powers are discretionary, almost judicial, in nature. Since they are exercised by administrators, not courtroom judges, they are called "quasi-judicial". The quasi-judicial characterization means the administrative process in which it occurs approximates the formal procedures of courtroom litigation. In other words, if the stakes are higher, the procedural safeguards are more rigorous. Most decisions of civil servants involve no dispute or consideration "on the merits". The renewal of driving, pet and other licences, the admittance of a Canadian citizen back into the country, the registration of interests in a Land Titles Office, the incorporation of a company, the enrollment of a child into a public school and the payment of a fine in traffic court are examples of routine administrative actions. They leave little room for decision-maker discretion or political interference. Once specified determinants are satisfied, for example, for the issuance or renewal of a passport or the application for social services benefits, the government action is routine and virtually certain. Procedural protections for these merely administrative acts are minimal. Otherwise formalities and appeals would paralyze government administration. Only procedural fairness is required, loosely meaning the administrator has to follow the rules, demonstrate honesty, and avoid insidious discrimination and malice toward the person. Some believe that natural justice and procedural fairness are merging into a concept known today as "the duty to be fair." Review of an official's or board's decision by a court. The law courts enjoy the inherent power to review the legality of administrative actions. That is because courts exist to interpret legislation, including the delegation of legislative power to administrators. They have also long used the prerogative remedies to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts and other tribunals. The applicant usually asks for one of the Latin "prerogative writs" described in the box below (because they were traditionally a form of royal prerogative). They were used to control the servants of the Crown. All these remedies are within the discretion of the reviewing judge.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,018 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,049 | 0,018 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».