Interdicts seeking to preserve constitutional rights - of losing litigants, interim interdicts pending appeal, and lessons from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors confront the vexed question whether there is any way for a litigant who has been unsuccessful in challenging government legislation in the court below to argue that, pending the outcome of an appeal against such decision, the impugned law (which thus far remains affirmed as constitutional by the court a quo) ought to be suspended to avoid prejudice and damage to the litigant in the interim. The authors suggest that the traditional position in South African law (which suggests that no suspension is possible) is inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of the Constitution. Their reasons for saying so are based on an analysis of South African cases, as well as on the important Canadian decision in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General) [1994] 1 SCR 311, a judgment which the authors suggest ought to be utilized by a South African court confronted with such an issue in future.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".