Administrative Delicts: A Case Study in Unlawful Municipal Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipalities are prone to abuses of power by elected officials. The law books overflow with examples of municipal illegality. This threatens the rule of law. Courts require sufficient remedial authority to maintain the rule of law. An adequate remedy would simultaneously correct the illegal situation, deter repetition, compensate those injured, channel public outrage and, in certain cases, allow supervision of corrupt governmental processes or officials. To satisfy these requirements, a new head of liability is needed. Liability in damages should be imposed for intentional jurisdictional excess. The developing doctrine of administrative delict would provide for damages for deliberate and malicious abuse of power. Damages for an intentional or negligent failure of an individual or administrative body to operate within jurisdiction should be available either against the individual in his personal capacity or against the administrative body. Because many of the wrongs suffered as a result of the illegal use of power are intangible, exemplary damages should be readily available in an action for administrative delict. This remedy would also enable the courts to consider deterrence and breach of public trust in assessing the award. It is the responsibility of administrative law to maintain a sense of orderliness in public administration. The theory of administrative delict needs doctrinal nourishment in order to restrain the abuses of authorities imbued with statutory power.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| 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".