Demystifying the Boundaries of Public Law: Policy, Discretion and Social Welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-recognized that in discretionary settings such as welfare eligibility determinations, front-line decision-makers are the policy-makers. Policy and administration are indistinguishable because these front-line decision-makers deal with a high volume of cases, with few opportunities for supervision, and must adapt general and abstract rules to the complex personal circumstances of applicants. The response of public law jurisprudence to the complexities of public policy and public administration has focused largely on the construction of a set of boundaries designed to distinguish the legal from the administrative aspects of decision-making. A re-examination of whether these boundaries are tenable or desirable is long overdue. Moreover, it is crucial to assess these boundaries not only from the standpoint of the courts and the coherence of legal doctrine, but also from the vantage of policy-makers and decision-makers who are responsible for the exercise of discretion, and whose judgments often affect vulnerable people with few alternative recourses.
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 | 0.027 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".