Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the role of multiculturalism in the exercise of administrative discretion. Whether the setting is national security or social welfare eligibility, standards of justice rise or fall on the judgments of individual front-line decision-makers. Such decision-makers are the human face of the state. Against this contextual backdrop, this paper addresses a series of critical questions, including: To what extent is the exercise of discretion specifically, and the character of the administrative state more generally, determined by culture and identity? Will decision-makers in a representative public service treat members of their own communities differently than members of other communities? Administrative culture and culture of the society at large are deeply entangled in the exercise of discretion. The reasons for discretionary decisions, in other words, must grapple with and not sidestep the values, beliefs and administrative structures which underlie them. This approach is elaborated in the Canadian context, with particular emphasis on the policy of the federal government to achieve a multicultural public service and the development of impartiality and fairness standards in Canadian administrative law.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".