MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1891827686 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618246.004

Taking the administrative state seriously

2006· book-chapter· en· W1891827686 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Computer scienceBusinessProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is still the case today that the most sustained attempt to understand judicial review for jurisdictional error as a legal phenomenon occurred in a series of articles, starting in the 1920s and finishing in the 1970s, by D. M. Gordon, a lawyer who practised in British Columbia. By legal phenomenon, I mean an attempt to understand such review within a coherent account of the rule of law. For it is easy to understand the political and other rationales for delegating authority to officials to implement public programmes – rationales to do with complexity, efficiency, and expertise. It is also easy to understand the reasons why governments think it necessary to protect public officials from the kind of judicial meddling which undermines the delivery of the statutory programmes the officials are charged with administering. In chapter 2, I discussed one of the main vehicles for protection, the privative clause which tells judges to refrain from review.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.207 · 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