Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the current standing of judicial review at the State level. It examines the arguments for and against the adoption of the ADJR Act model by those jurisdictions that have not already done so. An important question that flows from this issue is whether the various statutory models for judicial review have focused on procedural reform at the expense of any substantive reform. Another question, which has received virtually no consideration, is whether the States should even have a have a statutory vehicle for judicial review. The final section of this paper draws from the Canadian experience, where the combination of a federal system and a heritage of the English common law that has given rise to a more autonomous common law may appear similar to that of Australia. It is useful to rehearse some of the issues affecting the position of judicial review at the State level and how the federal nature of Australia’s constitutional system has or may affect the development of judicial review at the State level.
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 | 0.030 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".