Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerably less reluctance regarding judicial review in Iceland than in other Nordic countries and, arguably, in Canada and the United States. This article analyzes probable reasons for this. Some are historical and some jurisprudential and they may, to a greater or lesser degree, shed some light on the judicial review debate in other jurisdictions and be relevant also outside Iceland. The main jurisprudential factors are the different conceptualization of questions regarding judicial review on the one hand and a legalistic, almost technocratic, view of judicial review that leads to limited constitutional review and undervalues the role of the courts in the constitutional system on the other. The advantages and disadvantages of these jurisprudential factors as well as other differentiating traits of Icelandic law on this point are discussed as well as to what degree they are transferable to other jurisdictions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| 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".