Bibliographic record
Abstract
Administrative law is animated by two complementary purposes: first, to protect participatory rights in public decision-making, and second, to ensure accountability for public decision-making. The Anti-Terrorism Bill, with its sweeping and vague goals related to combatting terrorism, raises important and complex questions regarding the scope of participatory rights and accountability in the national security decision-making context. This chapter explores the way in which the Anti-Terrorist Bill intersects with each of these purposes. Using the Charity Registration (Security Information) Act as a case study, Sossin demonstrates that procedural guarantees can and will be sacrificed in contexts of national security. Ministerial certificates indicating that a person or group is engaged in terrorist activities, may be based on secret evidence, and may be signed and applied in circumstances where the affected parties never have a chance to know or respond to the allegations made against them. While limited review is provided for some of these extraordinary ministerial powers (for example, Ministerial certificates are referred to Federal Court Judges to determine whether the Minister had a reasonable basis for signing them), Courts are likely to defer to the judgment of executive decision-makers exercising broad discretion in the context of national security. While the jurisprudence of administrative suggests both participatory rights and accountability measures may be sacrificed to promote national security, Sossin argues that they should not be so lightly set aside. Both procedural fairness and meaningful forms of public review lead to more accurate, more just and more legitimate decision-making, which in turn may well result in enhancing both national security and respect for the rule of law.
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 | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".