MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562671362 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1096

Section 7 and Administrative Law Deference: No Room at the Inn?

2006· article· en· W1562671362 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Mullan

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeferenceDue processLawPolitical scienceCharterPersuasionProcedural justiceEconomic JusticeNatural justiceContext (archaeology)State (computer science)Law and economicsAdministrative lawSociologyPublic lawSources of lawEpistemologyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper owes much to conversations that I have had over the years with my former co-teacher of Advanced Constitutional Law, David Stratas, and also to his paper: David Stratas, "Constitutional Remedies in Administrative Proceedings: Supervision, Striking Sections, Policing Discretions, Standards of Review and Prospects for the Future" (Paper delivered at the

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.039
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0150.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207