Administrative Discretion and the Spirit of Legality: From Theory to Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article examine la relation entre la discrétion administrative et la primauté du droit. L'auteure démontre comment la discrétion administrative, conçue correctement, est non seulement compatible avec une compréhension particulière du principe de la primauté du droit, mais peut aussi devenir un véhicule permettant au pouvoir exécutif d'exprimer son engagement envers ce principe. Selon l'auteure, ceci est possible, premièrement, si la discrétion est conçue selon la métaphore du «dialogue» entre le dirigeant et le dirigé et, deuxièmement, si une compréhension substantive de la primauté du droit est mise de l'avant, à savoir une définition qui considère les trois éléments constitutifs de l'État (les sphères législative, judiciaire et exécutive) comme étant impliqués dans la prévention des actions arbitraires de la part des pouvoirs publics. L'auteure explore ces dynamiques dans le contexte concret de ses expériences en tant que vice-doyenne d'une faculté de droit. Elle cherche à comprendre comment le modèle théorique du dialogue fonctionne dans la pratique et à identifier les aspects particuliers de la théorie qui pourraient nécessiter plus d'étude et de recherche empirique.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".