Bibliographic record
Abstract
The highest courts in both Canada and South Africa have expressed themselves in favour of an approach of deference as respect in the review of administrative action. The notion of deference as respect derives from the thinking of David Dyzenhaus, who has developed a theory of democracy in support of this approach to judicial review. Dyzenhaus’ model of review attempts to steer clear from the problems he associates particularly with positivism and liberalism. Dyzenhaus’ model of review furthermore attempts to allow space for the administration to play a significant role in giving effect to democratic values, on the understanding that all such decisions need to be reasonably justifiable. In this article the views of Dyzenhaus are contrasted with those of Jacques Derrida, especially insofar as the latter has reflected on the relation between law and justice, as well as concepts such as the gift and democracy. The argument developed in this article is that Dyzenhaus’ model of review, despite its many positive features, needs to be rethought with reference to the perfect gift, unconditional justice and democracy to come. Such a rethinking is required because of the limited conception of justice – as simply ‘our’ justice – in Dyzenhaus’ model.
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 | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".