MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522598280

Judicial Review Standards of American Private Administration and Its Revelation

2015· article· en· W1522598280 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nianqing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministrative lawAdministration (probate law)AccountabilityPublic administrationJudicial reviewBusinessPolitical scienceFace (sociological concept)Private lawTask (project management)RevelationLawPublic lawEconomicsSociologyManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, more and more private entities undertake administrative tasks, provide public services, carry out public functions. In the era of multivariate public manager, how to build a private administrative accountability mechanism is a new task faced by the contemporary administrative law. Private administration could cause lack of responsibility, the response of the United States is that Setting strictly judicial review standards of private administration and Carefully applying public law norms to private entities. Our country also face a private administrative responsibility  problem. observing the American private administrative judicial review standard will be conducive to the construction of our country private administrative responsibility mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207