Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay identifies a blind spot in administrative law theory concerning the legitimate legal authority of administrative institutions. More specifically, the essay examines the root cause of this blind spot, arguing that it is attributable to A.V. Dicey's constitutional theory, which asserts that the English constitution rests upon the legal principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Dicey argued that the existence of administrative law was precluded by the nature of the English constitution, because it assigned exclusive legal authority to either Parliament or the common law courts. The essay criticizes Dicey's argument on two separate grounds. First, it argues that Dicey's theory was empirically mistaken, because it does not adequately account for common constitutional practices whereby legal authority is delegated to administrative institutions. Second, it argues that one can gain a better understanding of Dicey's theory if it is recast as a contestable political statement regarding the legitimacy of the administrative state. By engaging with Dicey's controversial ideological assumptions, we can set the stage for a more elaborate and robust constitutional theory that can better explain and justify the legitimacy of administrative authority.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| 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".